filearts

> Argon agents are working on migrating C/C++ codebases to Rust across Google — scaling from tens of thousands of lines in core libraries like re2, libgav1 up to 800K+ lines for the Fuchsia Zircon kernel.

That seems like quite an interesting data point regardless of the quality of the model. Are the results of these migrations going to be put into production? That would be quite a shift!

If we could come up with a system to classify the probabilities across a large number of candidate words (or components thereof) then this could actually be good at producing text, one element at a time. We could call these elements 'tokens' and picking the right one could be called something like 'decoding'. Crazy idea but hear me out...

On a more serious note, it will be fascinating to see how this different spin on modelling inference will create new paradigms or slot into existing ones.

Let's say that we are "pacing the frontier", and an approved model goes and causes billions of damage, or worse, loss of life. The auditor signed off on the model, so who is to blame? Who put their akin in the game? METR did. The public did. But it seems like the lab has crafted a system in which they remain blameless.

The calculus of risk is fundamentally different when the adverse consequences are obvious and tangible.

I don't see how some federal agency or external auditor will do anything to align incentives. It just seems like a way to socialize the risk while holding onto the benefits to me.

> If more expensive and consequential incidents happen, it seems like the legal machinery to prosecute it already exists.

If we instead imagined autonomous robots going and breaking stuff in the adjacent business' warehouse during a test run, I have to imagine a very different response. That this is happening in an abstract digital world (for now) is part of the problem.

> Can't negligence and recklessness already substitute for direct intent as the mens rea of a crime?

The point that I'm trying to make is that there's an opportunity to reduce this ambiguity. Reducing the ambiguity and aligning incentives is much more likely to prevent bad stuff happening than reacting to a fait accompli model with latent humanicidal tendencies.

What I don't understand is that folks take it as a fait accompli that models will be built and released that are fundamentally dangerous and that regulation can and should happen downstream of that.

I feel like there hasn't been enough discussion of aligning the incentives of the decision makers with that of the public on BUILDING the models. Right now, agents have committed what would be crimes if there were a human holding the same intent. But since it was an AI, there is a grey area in the law where it's not clear if there was a crime and who should be held responsible. That creates a world in which decision makers in AI labs can take near-infinite risk with little to no personal liability.

A LLM cannot have skin in the game so we must create systems that clarify who takes on the legal and civil liability for the creation, dissemination and operation of these tools. Until that time, the Dario and Sam's of this world have little to no incentive to truly care about safety.

After all, our society is built upon this same foundation; create structures where the perceived negative consequences outweigh the perceived positives. This only works when there is a human who can internalize and make this risk calculus. They need something to lose and this ultimately ties back to the human survival instinct. There is no such structure that's evolved for millions of years acting as a self-calibration mechanism for AI. So until we have sufficient proof that one is in place, it must be clear who the humans are whose livelihood and freedom is at stake.

The proposed "pacing of the frontier" seems like a way to continue to externalize the risk while remaining totally in control of the benefits -- a structure whose alignment is as weak as those very models committing crimes.

The perceived difficulty is not what is at play here. People and employers are not comfortable with the idea of long lived credentials to begin with -- and even less in the 'hands' of an AI agent.

The complexity in these protocols is mostly essential in nature (to the extent that you're not willing to totally reinvent the protocol, like AAuth).

Is there any line of sight to open sourcing the vmm?

Is it based on libkrun?

If you want to go back to a simpler editing experience, https://plnkr.co/edit/?preview might just do the trick for you. Hasn't changed in literally years. Nowhere near the polish or flair you see from legends like Chris Coyier though.

I think it is against the spirit of this community to suppress exciting content on the basis of its language.

This community is also undoubtedly composed of the kind of problem solver that can overcome this kind of hurdle.

My oh shit moment was when tool calling was emerging as a capability. That was the moment I realized that LLMs would be the glue connecting a million different use-cases in a million ways we wouldn't even be able to imagine.

Lot's of comments are nit-picking on how this demo misses the mark on specific technicalities of domains they're familiar with.

But that's totally missing the point: this is a demo of what seems like a totally new interaction model that could not previously have existed. It's a small glimpse at a possible future where those nit-picky details get better.

Remember when image models produced grotesque hands? Now look at GPT Image 2 and Nano Banana Pro; those original nits are mostly a thing of the past.

Take a look at this not for its immediate flaws but for the new doors it opens and the expansion of our collective imagination.

Is it really AI slop if someone leverages AI to improve / transform their novel experiences and ideas into a rendition that they prefer?

I'm not suggesting whether or not the article is AI assisted. I'm wondering if the ease of calling someone's work "AI slop" is a step along the slippery slope towards trivializing this sort of drive-by hostility that can be toxic in a community.

Given that the fix appears to be to look for own properties, the attack was likely to reference prototype level module properties or the gift-that-keeps-giving the that is __proto__.

I think it is distasteful and disrespectful to call out an employee by name in this way, regardless of the merit of the rest of the OP's post.

That's a bit of a naive perspective. There are plenty of situations and industries where access being down has an impact far beyond inconvenience. For example, access to medical files for treatment, allergies and surgery. Or access to financial services.

This is the interface I landed on to make pluggable 'session hosts': https://github.com/ggoodman/mcp-server-go/blob/b8216cc1830ad...

It goes a tad beyond the spec minimum because I think it's valuable to be able to persist some small KV data with sessions and users.

What I've started experimenting with and will continue to explore is to have project-specific MCP tools.

I add MCP tools to tighten the feedback loop. I want my Agent to be able to act autonomously but with a tight set of capabilities that don't often align with off-the-shelf tools. I don't want to YOLO but I also don't want to babysit it for non-value-added, risk-free prompts.

So, when I'm developing in go, I create `cmd/mcp` and configure a `go run ./cmd/mcp` MCP server for the Agent.

It helps that I'm quite invested in MCP and built github.com/ggoodman/mcp-server-go, which is one of the few (only?) MCP SDKs that let you scale horizontally over https while still supporting advanced features like elicitation and sampling. But for local tools, I can use the familiar and ergonomic stdio driver and have my Agent pump out the tools for me.

In a previous professional life, I did financial modelling for a big 4 accounting firm. We had tooling that allowed us to visualize contiguous ranges of identical formulas (if you convert formulas to R1C1 addressing, similar formulas have the same representation). This allowed for overrides to stick out like a sore thumb.

I suspect similar tools could be made for Claude and other LLMs except that it wouldn't be plagued by the mind-numbing tedium of doing this sort of audit.

An idea might be to require a financially meaningful deposit to pursue an account recovery like this. The deposit would be forfeit if the identity verification failed.

Though now that I write this, it creates a perverse incentive for a company to collect deposits and deny account recovery.

It is fascinating how similar the prompt construction was to a phishing campaign in terms of characteristics.

  - Authority assertion
  - False urgency
  - Technical legitimacy
  - Security theater

Prompt injection here is like a phishing campaign against an entity with no consciousness or ability to stop and question through self-reflection.

As is often the case, reality imitates satire. This reminds me of the "and then" scene from Dude, Where's my Car. https://youtu.be/iuDML4ADIvk

If you were willing to bring additional zod tooling or move to something like TypeBox (https://github.com/sinclairzx81/typebox), the json schema would be a direct derivation of the tools' input schemas in code.

I took a stab at this a while back using an object to represent the possible resolutions. The keys of the object become a signal upon resolution that indicates which branch fired. https://github.com/ggoodman/channels#select-key-string-chann...

Ultimately though, I don't believe that channels are an abstraction that makes sense in JavaScript's concurrency model. Go's contexts, on the other hand, would be a huge improvement over AbortController and AbortSignal.

Software engineers don't want to be managing physical hardware and often need to run highly available services. When a team lacks the skill, geographic presence or bandwidth to manage physical servers but needs to deliver a highly-available service, I think the cloud offers legitimate improvements in operations with downsides such as increased cost and decreased performance per unit of cost.

Seems like a fair trade-off to make.

Not anymore. The busses only come every 5m90s on that route.

Misallocated and misappropriated are two very different things. The linked tweet makes no mention of misappropriation.