baconner

What the other poster here said for testing against a reference, but also as an easier to get started with base for my own coding sandbox with coding agents. Took me quite a while to build one on my own that I was semi-happy with but I'd imagine one solid enough to run cowork on safely might have some deeper thinking and review behind it.

Ok I'd seen some sample sandbox scripts for this from anthropic before but not a full reference container. nice, thank you for sharing.

FWIW I think many of us would actually very much love to have an official (or semi official) Claude sandboxing container image base / vm base. I wonder if you all have considered making something like the cowork vm available for that?

I was trying to make no particular call on the actual reason aside from pointing at how obviously not the real story and false the statements made so far are. What a knot you have to tie yourself into to seek out an explanation where OpenAI has not made an ethical compromise to stay in the game here. I can stretch and think of some ways but they are far from the simplest explanation.

Lots of responses below give the likely real reasons most of which are probably true in part, but my opinion is it's the primary reason all who is in and who is out decisions are made by the trump administration - fealty. Skills, value brought, qualifications, etc. none of that matter above passing frequent loyalty tests, appealing to ego, bribes (sorry, i mean donations). Imagine thinking "hey, we'll work towards fully autonomous killbots because our adversaries will get them too but the tech isn't strong enough to allow them loose yet" or "yes you can use our ai for your panopticon surveillance, but just not on our own citizens because that is illegal" are lefty woke stances but here we are. Dario failed the loyalty test, as anyone rational would.

"We do not think Anthropic should be designated as a supply chain risk"

...but we're not willing to reject a contract to back that up, and so our words will not change anything for Anthropic, or help the collective AI model industry (even ourselves) hold a firm line on ethical use of models in the future.

The fact is if one of the top tier foundation models allows for these uses there's no protection against it for any of them - the only way this works if they hold a line together which unfortunately they're just not going to do. I don't just see OpenAI at fault here, Anthropic is clearly ok with other highly questionable use cases if these are their only red lines. We don't think the technology is ready for fully autonomous killbots, but will work on getting it there is not exactly the ethical stand folks are making their position today out to be.

I found this interview with Dario last night to be particularly revealing - it's good they are drawing a line and they're clearly navigating a very difficult and chaotic high pressure relationship (as is everyone dealing with this admin) but he's pretty open to autonomous weapons, and other "lawful" uses whatever they may be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPTNHrq_4LU

Respectfully, it's very hard to see how anyone could look at what just happened and come to the conclusion that one company ends up classed a "supply chain risk" while another agrees the the same terms that led to that. Either the terms are looser, they're not going to be enforced, or there's another reason for the loud attempt to blacklist Anthropic. It's very difficult to see how you could take this at face value in any case. If it is loose terms or a wink agreement to not check in on enforcement you're never going to be told that. We can imagine other scenerios where the terms stated were not the real reason for the blacklisting, but it's a real struggle (at least for me) to find an explanation for this deal that doesn't paint OpenAI in a very ethically questionable light.

They can't catch everything but they can make your product you're building on top of it non viable when it gets popular enough to look for, like they did with opencode.

For sure, yes. They already added attempts to block opencode, etc.

NVIDIA makes money no matter if the model is open weights or not. I don't think open is a concern for them and they'd very much like to be servicing China and their batch of open models I think. what's concerning them more likely is

A. The inevitable breakdown of their massive head start with CUDA and data center hardware. A serious competitor at real scale.

B. Anything that'll cool off the massive data center buildouts that are fueling them.

Seems clear that locking up a major potential competitor especially the minds behind it solves for A. And their ongoing machinations with circular funding of companies funding data centers is all about B - keeping the momentum before it fizzles.

There are a couple of decent approaches to having a planning/reviewer model set (eg. claude, codex, gemini) and an execution model (eg. glm 4.6, flash models, etc) workflow that I've tried. All three of these will let you live in a single coding cli but swap in different models for different tasks easily.

- claude code router - basically allows you to swap in other models using the real claude code cli and set up some triggers for when to use which one (eg. plan mode use real claude, non plan or with keywords use glm)

- opencode - this is what im mostly using now. similar to ccr but i find it a lot more reliable against alt models. thinking tasks go to claude, gemini, codex and lesser execution tasks go to glm 4.6 (on ceberas).

- sub-agent mcp - Another cool way is to use an mcp (or a skill or custom /command) that runs another agent cli for certain tasks. The mcp approach is neat because then your thinker agent like claude can decide when to call the execution agents, when to call in another smart model for a review of it's own thinking, etc instead of it being explicit choice from you. So you end up with the mcp + an AGENTS.md that instructs it to aggressively use the sub-agent mcp when it's a basic execution task, review, ...

I also find that with this setup just being able to tap in an alt model when one is stuck, or get review from an alt model can help keep things unstuck and moving.

That's a nice idea, so nice in fact that it already existed as 18F until they closed it under the guise of efficiency earlier this year and are now starting over.

Its not hard to distugush individual pictures that contain trackable attributes like a license plate number from building a large scale database of them for sale. Or making such a database not legal to sell access to without removing that information, etc. It doesn't need to center on the contents of a single photo.

It's pretty sad watching all the comments here calling this suggestion mccarthyism, witch hunt, etc. Police departments should be doing this and holding their employees to a high standard that's not a witch hunt that's common sense.

If you are a member of a violent gang or are too racist to police justly you are too dangerous to employ as a cop. Not looking for and removing these people is intentionally turning a blind eye to the extreme danger they present to people in their communities.

I do agree. It can work and when you've put the time into designing it to work then it can feel fairly magical, but there's a point at which you feel like you're almost pre-creating all the queries for users.

this here. I've spent the last couple of years working on a similar data discovery style product and after a lot of playing around with concepts I think semi-natural language descriptions typed and also generated based on your manual data selection can be really useful.

If I'm speaking i have to finish the whole thought and deal with excluding all my "uuhms" and half thoughts. If I'm typing i can intellisense prompt for relevant things. Correlate Sales with _[Discounts, ...]. I think terse natural langage descriptions of data views are really useful aside from voice.

Incidentally nothing like trying to play around with this stuff to make you super self conscious about uuh how you speak.

My experience with this is it's more of a gimmick. It's cool when it works but most of the time I've found it simpler and more accurate to just select the data you want.

They've got all the building blocks really. For instance check out sand dance https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/sanddance/

It's just that Microsoft is so focused on getting you into azure services that they're pushing these capabilities up there instead.

To be fair I also use a VPN a lot of the time with adblocking. That does speed up a lot of high ad sites.

Bugwise though I've had the same issues over a couple of different phones.

Your hypothetical there assumes that AMP actually works well. My experience is it's got painful usability issues at least on android chrome. The worst one I see all the time is scrolling down to actually read the AMP page frequently results in the page closing, returning you to results.

Fast is good, but at least it ought to be a good user experience. I used to use google news a lot, but i totally abandoned it after constant frustrating experiences with AMP. Plus most of the amp-ified pages don't seem significantly faster than the original page. I'm not seeing the utility for users, just for google.

The cost isn't the only issue though. You still have to somehow get to the DMV to get it and oops many Texas DMVs were closed in poorer Democrat leaning areas so it's now a time consuming and expensive journey to go get it. Might be an hour or two away but you can't miss your minimum wage job during business hours or no rent money so what are you going to do? Or say you're old and impoverished and don't have your birth certificate now its a huge problem to get that id. Might be you have to travel to another state and go through a DMV like process to get a copy first and again you don't have the means or time.

Texas' strict voter ID requirement was struck down in the courts last summer precisely because of these reasons. It was found that the law, despite free IDs significantly disadvantages black and latino voter's in the state who are much more likely to have issues like above. Didn't stop polling place workers in some areas though some of whom still turned people away based on the non-existent requirement.

OK, but even if you disregard voter ID (others have explained that issue well here already) the Republican party has engaged in a large number of other methods to supress votes. Fighting to overturn parts of the voting rights act , Gerrymandering, reducing polling places in cities with demographics that tend to vote for Democrats, removing early voting days and fighting against vote by mail (methods favored by Democrat leaning demographics), and the list goes on.

The Democrats have engaged in many of these same methods in the past btw, but today's GOP have taken it to the next level. So far that I question if many Republican leaders believe in democracy at all anymore.

Ha, no I do not. Defining the one true way is the domain of the religious.

You're putting a lot of beliefs and faith in my mouth there. I don't have supreme belief in anything. I just think it's extremely unlikely that any faith founded on magic is true and some kind of magic is a common thread in religion. I think it's unlikely true to the point that it's not worth my time except as an interesting cultural phenomenon. There's nothing crazy about that.

Faith and belief are not the same thing.

Oops. I have been working on a lot of multitenant applications lately.

Also I don't speak so good.

not my intent. I might tell another atheist to go read the definition of the word which is very narrow, but i wont tell them that being an atheist means you have to subscribe to any additional beliefs. that's my point.

Oh also... This is not true of aethism either

> the belief in one true way to understand reality

Again, there are no tenants of atheism, no rules, no insistence that there's only one way everyone should define reality. We just don't believe in God and that's the entire thing. Some atheists may think that but I don't and it is not atheism.

We're not in a religion, a club, or anything. I don't get to tell another atheist they're doing it wrong because there's no affiliation between us.

My experience is most atheists are a lot more educated about the wide variety of religious beliefs than the religious who tend to just stick with whatever their parents believe. That's anecdotal but I think it's natural to go find out about other faiths as part of the process of questioning the faith of your parents or society.

There may be 4.6+ billion variants of the idea, but I rejected the root idea, magic.

>Also, in the realm of morality, everything atheism purports to be true is completely optional.

Well, no. Atheism does not purport anything to be true at all.

It's a lack of belief in one thing. I don't understand why that's so difficult for religious people to understand. Atheism is not a replacement for religion. There is no atheist rulebook, no set of beliefs, nothing.

Atheists can of course have morals but they don't derive from atheism and are not hindered by it either. They're unrelated.

*Edit, expanding...

Your argument presupposes that the only place morals can be derived from is religion where that the rules exist is the entire argument for why you should follow them. God says so, end of discussion.

There are better ways to derive morals based on day to day reality. There are better reasons not to murder than god says so.

I don't see a lot of audio issues, but tons of problems with screen sharing and video.

My company has about 4000 users in 100+ countries so maybe it's bandwidth/scale in part. i see a lot of stuff like skypefb crashes or doesn't render correctly when you try to screen share, etc especially internationally.

Not 100% certain part of it isn't due to us cheaping out on infrastructure to run it.

Ha you got me there