nicce

> The Chinese labs have shown that distillation is incredibly effective, but the major US frontier labs haven’t (yet) been incentivized to shrink their models in the same way

Have they, actually? A lots of speculation and claims but what is the level of admittance?

I think the hoarder just wanted to have rooted PS5

> Do we really expect all the world’s corporations to suddenly up their annual spend by 1,000% on average? Why?

If they keep replacing employees with AI, that is indeed the direction.

You should try to add comments with that built-in editor. You can spend hours of writing the comments, and then suddenly, some comment gets corrupted and it removes all existing comments. All work gone. You can't trust that tool.

When GPT 6 Sol & Luna were released, everything went down. I have been running Sol at max thinking and it is about the same as old Luna with max thinking, give or take. Sometimes feeling even dumber. I can't trust it to do anything big alone anymore without babysitting.

It is hard to trust these scores. GPP 6 Sol has been so bad for few days.

Imagine Anthropic for using Gemini internally and anticipating for it

> The last few days, their models feel dumb, thick.

My local Qwen 3.8 27B seems faster and more intelligent than new Luna.

How well it is documented or known that how they use the passport information and so on. Current blocker for EU citizen is to share that data for AI company…

I was able to get similar with Qwen 3.8 27B with one shot. I think this game is too well in the training data.

Comments are two years old, however.

Nobody stops to think "why not" when it is so easy to add certain features to software these days. But everyone wants to capture peoples attention and adding messaging is one way to do it.

> Put a human in the loop and you just end up bottlenecking it and throwing away any purported productivity gains. Auto mode doesn't matter either, it's trivial to trick and for the agent to break out.

Productivity gains are still enormous compared to what we used to do before agents. But, I know that people don't want to stop there.

This is like discussing that instead of trying to reduce the air pollution to prevent climate change, we should focus our efforts on controlling the sun. The way how current LLMs work, it is impossible to prevent certain states in the output. We should completely revamp the foundations how they work. Or, for starters, try to understand how they actually work without trying to improve them. Otherwise, this kinda of discussion is just like misdirection. But, until then, sandboxing is needed and OpenAI did not use it properly.

Expect that the best chips are still banned.

> The OpenAI HF incident is separate from this. It involved actual zero days, teamwork and message passing, and sophisticated chains of exploits.

What exactly? They seem to be trivial SSR/path traversal and input validation issues. Including misconfiguration. Nothing novel.

> That seems pretty locked-down to me. I don't think it's reasonable to expect companies to find all the unknown vulnerabilities in any third-party software they use.

It is reasonable to expect for companies to select third-party components that are fit for the purpose. Artifactory was not running in the sandbox, but rather as the edge, so it is in the sandbox'es trust boundary. Same sandboxing requirements would apply for this software too as it is pure dependency.

Security trust boundary was extended to include Artifactory as a dependency, but Artifactory was not fit for the job, and sandboxing failed. And as the network isolation was not good enough, the impact was catastrophic.

Lot's of hints in the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI%E2%80%93HuggingFace_inc...

E.g. even the basic thing (block the internet), was not actually properly blocked.

Some comments: https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/22/how-an-openais-human-mista...

In early Covid-19 era, there was a lot of speculation how the virus escaped Chinese labs. The narrative was absolutely opposite. Not about how developed or sophisticated the lab was in creating or modifying such virus, but how poorly it was managed since it was able to escape the lab. If these LLMs really are so dangerous, the framing should be indeed the same.

> OpenAI, for example, thought their sandboxes were good enough. As their AIs got more and more advanced, they kept proving them wrong - sandbox after sandbox.

What I have been reading, was that their sandboxes were so poor that it was pure negligence. I am still waiting to see if some external and neutral cybersecurity company with high reputation would audit their sandboxes and how they are being used.

And the biggest risk with AI. There have been many posts about how dangerous it is.

> A GitHub URL at least is still an credible identifier, your custom domains is not, and likely will never be given how the system is accustomed to. Domain is for branding, not identification.

The post is about commercial software. If enterprise’s domain is not credible enough, then there are bigger problems.

In a Codex subreddit there is a bunch of stats.

Sol pricing dropped but so did the quality few days ago. I wonder when these companies are sued for making the terms from their side to go downwards while taking the same subscription cost.

I thought that whole point of CSS in JS was about building the CSS with JS in build time, to get managed and optimized output, who madman runs in in runtime?

> Boeing's MCAS system was also "just software". Which in principle can be "controlled", i.e. changed, updated, audited or whatnot.

> But then people died precisely because pilots found themselves unable to override or "control" the systems precisely when it mattered.

Wasn't it designed to do so? Also works as a counter example, that sandboxes can limit AI if just operators want to do so.

Obviously, if someone is state-level actor and allows government's employees to do whatever they please, there is no other solution than political pressure.

But for other cases, it is not different than other cyber crime. Except that these AI capabilities can't live on the toaster yet. If we get state of the art model running fast on Raspberry Pi, then we have real problems.

> So, how many rogue AIs are we willing to tolerate?

It will balance automatically based on the severity they cause. If they constantly break systems, punishments will go up against the operators and the effect will be similar as with other serious crimes.

We don't live in anarchy, or do we? We probably would still have slaves if it would not be so aggressively penalized.

> More or less like atomic bomb is hardware, it can be controlled.

That is the point. It can be controlled by the operators if they want to.