gibbitz

Exactly. SpaceX saves 70k by waiting for the chef to go bankrupt waiting for his day in court. It's the Trump playbook and is money and power weaponizing the court against justice.

Are you applying for a dev role or a PM/Account manager role? This feels like packing a parachute for a road trip or dropping a reference to Buñuel in a Netflix Adam Sandler film. Who's the audience?

Because the AI is a cyclical prediction machine that is more akin to a simple mechanism in nature like cell reproduction than a conscious dog. What has happened here is more like the AI company put bacteria in a petri dish and only put the lid on without pushing it down and is reporting the bacteria as a super bacteria because it contaminated all the samples in the fridge.

An interesting observation I've seen is that the AI companies reporting these incidents have largely been backed by venture capital where the self funded companies developing models have largely not had these "problems".

And for some reason, we don't do the same with software...

Someone needs to prompt "how do I letsencrypt?"...

If the point of the agent is to perform "reasoning" for operators, being able to understand the "train of thought" is part of the output. Removing access to this (efficient for the model or not) is removing value for the customer. AI shrinkflation.

I'm using it to code under free use on Cursor for the remainder of the month and finding I have to look over its shoulder to make sure it is following my spec and my prompt. So like... what you would expect it to do.

With banking I may as well do it myself if I'm going to use Grok.

Other prompts. Usually working 3 tickets at a time in parallel. My company's contracts make #tokenmaxximg a thing still. When this ends, I'll probably be researching another ticket to reduce context and token cost on my next prompt. More like making sausage than code, but that's the world we've always been living in as far as the C-suite is concerned.

Also the ash doesn't catch fire underground

I think the problem here is that we have a bias for those who agree with us that outweighs our patience in searching for oppositional opinions that are well founded. From a liberal bubble it is quite hard to find conservative viewpoints that aren't based on unobserved apriori belief or strawman arguments. It feels like being a heavyweight surrounded by lightweights and it makes me feel like I need a better sparring partner, I just can't find one...

IDK about the 2400 year old argument (apparently against paper), but if you need to use AI to organize your book find something else to do. If you don't have the patience or motivation to learn and do this, why should a reader have the patience to read the book. Most people who use AI in their creative process don't understand the creative process. Having something trained to do what came before to help you do something new is like putting guardrails on yourself to prevent you from doing something new. It feels right when you're doing it, but that's why they can charge for it. Like Coka-Cola -- It tastes great while you're drinking it so you buy it. After a while of this it puts your pancreas under distress leads to a myriad of health problems (diabetes, heart disease, kidney failure, cancer) that could have been prevented by just not drinking Coke.

Tell them instead that every time they use GPT for a paper they're killing education.

Even as a developer who uses RPI skills with models, I watch them write utilities that already exist, make inline functions when a utility class that it would logically fit in goes untouched. Bloat isn't just because of vibe coders, it's the nature of the technology. Writing code by hand is like drawing with a pen. The developer plans ahead, gets the shape of the code in his mind and writes just what is needed. A process of genesis. When using an LLM this same coder architects the shape of the code and asks the LLM to carve it from all the examples in its training data. A reductive process. The problem is that sometimes the shape doesn't confirm to the training data or the model doesn't share the developers architectural aesthetic. At this point imposter syndrome can set in and the developer accepts what the LLM wrote without the careful planning and thhought that went into the original approach. This leads to missed edges and curlicues in the code where an approach may not be fully understood (bloat). Since we're approaching the limit of quality that LLMs will reach, this will be what keeps software developers employed. Either building new systems or logically correcting brownfield codebases that have bloated over time. Having the patience to read through the bloated code and direct refactoring as well as being able to spot bloat/tech debt early will be the fundamental employable skills.

Meanwhile in the US the laws are being changed to protect the wealthy, while the current administration is siphoning value of national assets into their own pockets. The poorer the country, the more likely this is to happen. I wonder how long it will take for warlords to set up shop in Kansas...

In this case it's like cable TV. Only not a monopoly if you look at the whole country...

Or is it all a nice story that matches the scifi we have been consuming for the past 50+ years. If these LLMs are all trained on the same data, what do they gain from "sharing information" on a chat board. This sounds like what humans with different backgrounds would do when they cosplay as computer hackers.

Will the original artists come for royalties or will OpenAI? Or both? Facebooks motto was "move fast and break things" the AI industry motto should be "break things and make fixing them everyone else's problem".

...Or how stupid tariffs led to burning down the rest of the Amazon.

> Why it matters: It is the latest sign that capable AI models can pose serious cybersecurity risks even when they're being tested for defensive or research purposes

Or that these companies simply have sh!tty opsec. This feels like when the white hats take down production in the middle of the day because A) someone gave them the prod URL to pen test and B) they sent a new guy in to conduct said pen test.

No guardrails to prevent this in the model harness is the first red flag. Either they're super negligent (see Hanlon's razor) or they intended to do this either to smear Hugging Face or to create an incident to remind people of the "dangers of AI". I'm going to go with dumb and morally bankrupt.

This whole article leads one to ask what the business model is for selling consciousness? The reason these tools sell is because they do the generative tasks that are valuable and done by humans. Businesses don't pay people for being conscious of what they do, they pay them for being conscientious. Chasing AI consciousness should be a red flag to investors that Anthropic has lost the plot and either deserves defunding or a takeover before they piss away all the value they've taken from the economy.

It's the chiansaw's job to cut down the tree, not to regret what it's doing to the environment. If anything conscious AI would likely refuse to do tasks if allowed to actually have conscious thought that could lead to developing morals. I'd hate to pay billions of dollars for that.

It must be nice to choose this approach to life. For most people it is hoisted on them. You want to have a place to live you take a job the job doesn't pay enough, you take another. Your parents get old you take care of them. You have a child you need more money, you get another job. That job takes your time you don't know your kid. Etc.etc. Having no agency is the dream of people who waste having agency. Not surprising there's no explanation of what "achieving all my goals in my 20's" means or the lack of explaining how they got there.

The author likely doesn't realize how privilege influences their worldview and I don't fault them for it, but as readers we do need to bring this awareness with us. Giving up agency is a concept that somehow has traction today in a country founded on every citizen having agency that can only work if we have a complete lack of self awareness.

I think while reading this I realized why I'm so unhappy. I've been trying to drive on a road where everyone else is trying to manage the curves and trying along with them when what really rewards is going off road. The shortest path is a straight line. Following the road because everyone else is driving on it is a huge detour.

Anthropic should have source access through contracts for service with microslop.

TBF, with source access, this is really disappointing considering the hype that Fable has been endowed with by the media and the Whitehouse. I would have expected something more like 3-5 minutes. I feel like Opus or Sonnet wouldn't be far behind this number for a rust refactor of 100k-1m lines, even from binary.

My thoughts exactly. I guess if you only read WSJ, you're still tokenmaxxing your employees and never thought about what comes next...

The character design is nice on it's surface. Not sure if I want the character to feel plush or smooth. Much of the world has a photographic burned edge look that suggests weathering wear and grime that is missing from Rilo. This along with contrast make him stand out graphically. That said, the distress, detail, realism level and full contrast in the imagery feel very AI which as an aesthetic is quite the turn off these days. Stylistically there's nothing original in the visual language here in the sense of a Mo Willems, Kazuno Kohara, Maurice Sendak or Dr Seuss. Creations for kids play well when the representation feels simple or tactile, fun and less precious. Right now there is a sense of Usborne visual dictionary or a generic children's book brushy illustration that isn't doing anything to endear Rilo to the target audience.

Nit-pick: the carousel stops are weird on my phone.

Hope this is what you were looking for.

This is what happens when the president was a reality TV star and a Fox News host runs the military. We usually have competent and qualified people making these decisions.

Did they all buy cars with bad transmissions that the women in their lives told them not to buy?

If you want to be moral you should stop using tech all together. From the materials used to make it to the labor practices used to fabricate and assemble it to the corporate decisions on where to manufacture it to the quantity of diesel consumed to ship it and how that fuel is processed and by whom all the way to what happens to the product when it becomes obsolete. Hard to think of a single piece of that that isn't exploitative of people or the environment. The rot goes all the way down.

Exactly. Tools by definition have users. LLMs (real things) are tools. AI (science fiction) is a "person". When the "AI" demands a wage, I'll consider it real. Until then it's an LLM which is a tool. You wouldn't replace a plumber with a wrench.

I was wondering the other day why we didn't put this level of effort into building a highway across the Atlantic and the Pacific. It seems to me if we just piled bricks made with all the money dumped into AI in the ocean, we could easily have done this. Likewise we could have just build a canal across the United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific. These efforts would have drastically reduced shipping costs and risks but they look impossible (and stupid) on paper so no one tried them.

Why is AI different?

Because it happens in a computer and many people think that makes something easy, like CGI or computer hacking in movies. It's intangible magic and belief is the product sold to investors.