cryptocoder

Looks like you’re right on this. Probably wishful thinking on my part that at least one manufacturer would be doing the right thing wrt autonomous vehicles.

I agree. But that’s not what I meant to say: only for life-critical software (think autonomous vehicles, airplanes, medical robots and devices).

This is great. It would be good if all life-critical software was open-sourced like this. Maybe something that should in fact be required?

But, ”in turn, we receive support in taking our AI software to the next level of development”

I bet they are mainly looking for help. They are trying to figure out why their software is not capable to do what it is supposed to, and hoping someone can assist.

I’m ready to consult them on this if they are open to hear the bad news first...

Adding ‘secure’ to the name of some chip (“‘secure’ element”) does not automatically make it secure through magical or other means.

In contrast to proof of work, proof of stake will support itself since it doesn't come with the high power demands.

There are plenty of proof of stake consensus protocols out there already (Avalanche, iChing, Ouroboros, ...). These do not require the huge power demands of proof of work to provide network security. As a result, they also don't need the high ongoing investment to support the decentralized network.