devnonymous

I agree, this is why I still use vi :-) Sorry couldn't resist

Coincidentally, I am reading 'Scale' by Geoffrey West where this concept of impedence matching is discussed (amongst many other things). It is fascinating how impedence matching was arrived at in biological systems viq evolutionary pressure to optimize energy usage.

Who was it ? The ^US government^ .. or for that matter, any government or corporation doesn't pursue litigation. It is humans who make this decision (at least for now ...).

Who in the government bureaucracy made the decision and followed through? It's sad that we've become accustomed to accept governments/corporations as entities by themselves when they clearly aren't.

tl;dr NP-hard isn't that hard if you relax constraints.

While not novel its a pity warrants a legitimate HN front page.

> For example, I worry that biology will have a strong attacker-defender asymmetry, where sufficiently capable models may be able to quickly weaponize pandemic-level viruses with widely available materials,

If he had just left that bit out it wouldn't be so obvious that he's just clutching at straws at this point. In some twisted sense it's almost sad to see.

Not with LLMs, it won't. (The probabilistic prediction property prevents proper persistent programmable predictability)

You're applying the doorman fallacy here. This has been discussed a lot. Honestly, the sooner the industry accepts that we aren't there yet nor does the current architecture enable us do get there, the sooner we can make progress towards that ideal state.

> We simply have better magic wands and more powerful spells now.

Wouldn't it be nice though if the incantation of the same spell would always do the same thing every time ? You see that's how my old wand and spells worked.

> In the new system prompt we say: Write code that reads like the surrounding code: match its comment density, naming, and idiom.

Hmm, so what happens in greenfield projects ? In any case, at least all the slop will be consistent.

tl;dr Since nobody really understands why or how any of this shit works, last time around we just threw a bunch of crap at it to see what stuck. Seems like we could just have have thrown less crap.

> So then it’s seems it’s either that this was intentional(ish) or bad security

My take - don't attribute to intention that which can be sufficienty explained by inexplainability or incompetence (although I doubt the latter).

> rocket engineers/scientists are in high demand with lots of likely sponsors for immigration

I wouldn't be too sure about the immigration part, when even a software engineer hire for a defence/defence adjacent job requires jumping through a number of bureaucratic hoops of security clearances. Even the companies with deep pockets don't always get the best people in the world -- they just get the best people that HR can actually hire.

The defaults seem sensible. This isn't keep-alive-forever by default solution.

Yes https://github.com/izeigerman/claude-thermos/blob/main/src%2...

From the README:

> Detect the danger window. When the main lineage goes idle and a subagent is actively running, the main prefix is at risk of expiring.

So, this is not demanding to be at the front of the queue, it's just paying someone to take the place you already had in the queue, when you want to take a leak.

> Couldn’t a Lindy enthusiast have gone “umm but isn’t Java too new and shouldn’t we just stick to C which is well trodden and understood??”

I think people often misrepresent history because they view it with the benefit of hindsight. People who chose to use Java didn't do it to embrace a revolutionary idea, they were embracing an evolutionary one. It seemed like a natural optimization step, rather than a clean slate.

Most Jave devs were proficient C devs who found the idea of a platform independent C quite appealing.

That's the Lindy effect. C (the essence of it) survives in Java and right up to JS/python/go.

In contrast consider Pascal, Fotran, Perl, COBOL, (and dare I say ... Lisp ?)

To be blunt you should perhaps read the README before being condescending and dismissive. https://github.com/prime-radiant-inc/superpowers-evals

Ehe ... https://github.com/prime-radiant-inc/superpowers-evals

I'm honestly surprised at all the people here commenting that superpowers didn't work out for them.

For me personally, it was a game changer when I first began using it and now it simply is as much a part of my workflow as any say, using git (yeah it has its warts but way way more value).

Also, the latest (version 6) is noticebly token efficient as claimed.

Did the people who found it underwhelming not try starting with the brainstorming skill first?

The real joke here is how close these quips are to the reality of modern day financial markets. Specifically, lending and hedging, are time entangled and value within the markets exist in superposition.

> For me a bigger issue was git calling vimdiff for each file,

If you configure vimdiff as the difftool in your git config, just doing a `git diff` would show you the diff for each file sequentially.

24K is presumably the number that got caught. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that there indeed are (/ were over time), 5x accounts that managed to bypass the checks anthropic had.

Are you sure about that ? Because the very next tweet says:

  > Distillation can be legitimate: AI labs use it to create smaller, cheaper models for their customers.

> These labs created over 24,000 fraudulent accounts and generated over 16 million exchanges with Claude

What exactly makes these accounts ^fraudulent^ ...did they not pay Anthropic for the service ?

So what you're saying is the interface fails the common case?

I'm almost certain what the OP meant was if the commands were run synchronously (ie: from 2 different shells or as `mv a b &; mv c d`) yes there is a possibility that a and d exist (eg: On a busy system where neither of the 2 commands can be immediately scheduled and eventually the second one ends up being scheduled before the first)

Or to go a level deeper, if you have 2 occurrences of rename(2) from the stdlibc ...

rename('a', 'b'); rename('c', 'd');

...and the compiler decides on out of order execution or optimizing by scheduling on different cpus, you can get a and d existing at the same time.

The reason it won't happen in the example you posted is the shell ensures the atomicity (by not forking the second mv until the wait() on the first returns)

From the "Discussion" section:

> This suggests that as companies transition to more AI code writing with human supervision, humans may not possess the necessary skills to validate and debug AI-written code if their skill formation was inhibited by using AI in the first place.

I'm reminded of "Kernighan's lever" :

> Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?

AI is writing code in the cleverest way possible which then introduces cognitive load for anyone who hasn't encountered these patterns previously. Although, one might say that AI would also assist in the debugging, you run the risk of adding further complexity in the process of 'fixing' the bugs and before you know it you have a big stinking ball of mud.

Otoh, tarrifs as a foreign policy / coercion method disconnected from trade and local economy impacts definitely is a new thing.

Sure, it might have been used as a delicate lever previously but in its current brazen form is just bad diplomacy.

The linked trends suggest a revival of the term though.

> The people who do the "*nix" cargo cult thing have never seen a SunOS machine and don't even know what a HPUX is.

The meaning of words evolve over time though. Text is still broken into lines by "carriage return/line feeds" and is written on "hard disk" split up in "sectors".,. Over time people using these would not have seen a typewriter or even know what a platter is but may still use it to communicate effectively.

I claim that the new code, music or documents have not added anything significant/noteworthy/impactful to society except for the self-perpetuating lie that it would, all the while regurgitating, at high speeds, what was stolen.

And all at significant opportunity cost (in terms of computing and investment)

If it was as life altering as they claim where's that novel work of art (in your examples..of code, music or literature) that truly could not have been produced without GenAI and fundamentally changed the art form ?

Surely, with all that ^increased productivity^ we'd have seen the impact equivalent of linux, apache, nginx, git, redis, sqlite, ... Etc being released every couple of weeks instead of yet another VSCode clone./s