zmmmmm
Previously, pretty much everyone all agreed on YAGNI and KISS because code was so expensive to create and more expensive to maintain. Now the code generation is "free" - but at a design level, YAGNI and KISS do still matter. But they are enforced now only by sheer will power. You have to actively restrain the code from being created if you don't want it. Perfectly good code - I can't even fault it. I just know, if it doesn't need to exist yet, it's a mistake to create it earlier than needed.
Yes, open models are needed too - the oligopoly is not much less dangerous than the monopoly for some scenarios. But at least if your tool set can switch to those it can probably switch to an open model if it really comes to that.
Anthropic is highly opinionated, dogmatic and idealistic. They have made a pragmatic decision already to cut loose a whole swathe of users so they can pursue areas higher up the value chain. that was essentially the original decision they made when they went after software engineering instead of general users. The fact they are repeating this over and over by continuing to carve out sets of users and usages they don't want reinforces this as a persistent core principle rather than a single pragmatic business decision.
What this means is that at a higher level, their core principle is to sacrifice users they don't "need" rather than provide a broad, accessible service. Which means in turn, you have to accept that when your usage conflicts with their interests, you are at very high risk they will cut you out. If you already depend on Anthropic in any critical path of your daily life, this will be a significant issue.
I realised after a while that one of the main reasons I go online is to expand my horizons. I'm actively looking for something new or interesting or surprising that I might not have encountered or thought about before. I am also looking for perspective - give me a broad picture of how the world is so I can calibrate and introspect where my own perspective differs and could be updated. I want to see the things that don't fully align with my ideas.
So it turns out personalised feeds are actively curating against what I'm looking for. I'm curious if others are like me or is this just something weird about me. I think it is very much why I like Hacker News format. It's in the broad areas of my interests but it is anything but curated just for me.
if AI tools get good enough that they can exploit ingrained hardware properties such as subtle timing and race conditions and swarms off them become cheap enough to deploy so that they can persistently exploit low probability events we could reach a state where I think it's actually practically impossible.
This is the reality I think for a lot of orgs and is absorbing a lot of the productivity gains. The gap between vibe coding a green field app from nothing which is inherently "AI native" and implementing AI tooling into complex orgs with large amounts of legacy infrastructure, integrations, ingrained practices etc is enormous. For us, it has been a big effort to enable agentic coding over a significant footprint of our codebase. And all this is happening while the plane keeps flying, with near zero tolerance for defects in critical systems. There is a lot more to it than you will understand if you just look at twitter or Hacker News.
Presumably it means much more behavioral security and inherent friction built in to everything we do. Maybe high value transactions will just inherently have to take multiple days to do, just to slow down things enough that human reaction time can equal what LLMs can execute?
On the technical side, I can see zero trust becoming completely saturated through every layer. The passkey you authenticate with isn't opening a gate to a trusted tier within which components trust each other - even within the same software component. Every internal function call at every layer doing hardware signature verification against continuously minted private keys (since we assume exposure, the lifetime can't be longer than milliseconds now).
It's really interesting to think through what a fundamentally robust security environent does look like if you bake in an assumption that technical security is impossible.
Quest Pro is a good example though because yes, they provided OS updates. But they never released anything like the required software to address professional use cases that they suggested would happen when they launched it. That's where I harbor the doubts about support. I just don't think Meta "gets" professional / business use. They aren't built with that DNA as a company.
But the real choice is the unfortunate one of who is least likely to abandon the whole thing when it doesn't take off and leave you with an un/poorly supported device. Both companies have terrible track records on this.
void matmul(Matrix2DFloat A, Matrix2DFloat B, Matrix2DFloat C, int size) {
for (@Parallel int i=0; i<size; i++) {
for (@Parallel int j=0; j<size; j++) {
float sum = 0f;
for (int k=0; k<size; k++)
sum += A.get(i,k)*B.get(k,j);
C.set(i, j, sum);
}
}
}
And why confuse everybody by calling it a VM when it ships as a JAR file that runs in an existing VM?
> [they will not use for ads] ... unless you choose to make data from these services available to other Google services that support personalized ads
So it is more reasonable than I think most people are assuming.
The question is, what do you do as the new administration coming in? Presumably you assume every system and every person is compromised all the way down, like a compromised server - clean wipe and re-install.
One would assume that, like any good hacker, the current set would be heavily focused on ensuring they can survive a reboot / wipe. The question is, what would they be doing to achieve that?
I know there are distinct camps here, and the long term story may evolve - but for now I just want the whole harness inside a sandbox - ideally, a full VM - and THEN you can further sandbox things it runs if you really want different tiers within that.
I am sceptical of these things however since they are a well worn path that so far has taken off only to a limited extent. In reality, you get bored very quickly in these environments, and it's impossible to implement impressive visual fidelity in worlds that users build themselves. Horizon Worlds is probably the marquee example of that. Am curious what the differentiating angle is here to previous efforts?
It seems too early to make any conclusion like that. We've still only been doing agentic coding for a year and capability significantly improved during that time. I don't think anybody on either side of this debate can have actual empirical evidence to support conclusions about where it lands longer term.
The main argument I see is that it probably pays to be slightly conservative because the cost of being wrong by maintaining too much oversight and shipping slightly less code is better than the cost of ending up with an entirely unmaintainable system. In some cases it will be more than "slightly less" but in almost all complex pre-existing systems, you are rate limited by a lot of other factors outside of code production, so the effective difference just isn't that high.
I got to this part:
> If the keys are random unit vectors
And hesitated here. It seems then the article is predicated on us trying to store "white noise". However in the real world, data has much more structure than that. Every bit of structure is an opportunity to compress more. So all the conclusions here would be an upper/lower bound rather than a true estimate.
I assume this is accounted for by:
> In fact we haven’t actually considered the training data at all, which affects what actually is being represented in the keys and values
but it understates the point: much of the compressability as well as intelligence in the models come explicitly from the structure in the data. So it's very interesting you can derive MLP and transformer architecture even absent that. But the real leverage comes from the interaction of those things WITH structure in the data.
I would be worried about your methodology when the subscription party ends. Make no mistake, one day, the party is ending and the people who are dining out on approaches that burn massive tokens are in for a rude shock.
He's completely transparently campaigning for regulation. It must be very frustrating to him that the Trump admin is completely non-responsive. He probably thought Anthropic would have the whole market stitched up and water tight by now.
Everything works like this in the end at some level. I assume people with monorepos don't retest their project on every Linux kernel commit - it's pointless, you are never going to run against exactly that commit. But you will do it when you do upgrade Linux versions, etc.
The first thing that hits me is, did you consider not going all in on a monorepo? I know it has been the trend in general, but it seems a bit of a red flag when you go from "let's have a monorepo it will make merging easier" to "let's redesign version control because merging is too hard now" without the middle question "should we really have a monorepo?"
As a derivative thought I'm curious if AI tooling is tipping people more towards monorepos now since it gives the agent the whole context of the app in one go? Or is this independent - I can easily check out 5 repos in one directory and run an agent there.
I think there's a bit of a false premise around "line by line".
I don't need to syntactically parse every line to scan it for the the type of risks that matter here. You can look high level and see the pattern and shape of the code, the type of things it is doing. If it is doing stupid things ("Wait is it making a new connection to the database inside the loop here?"). It does take an experienced eye, but with that experienced eye it is a very rapid process.