I did everything by hand for so long and miss it, now I just read thousands of lines day in day out. But there are interesting gains such as lowered barrier to quickly run adhoc perf tests, do some formal verification, you can just add more guardrails for the thing that gets shipped. The thing I hate though is when managers sell their generated code and you are left shoehorning it to production, they take away the interesting part of the job.
Misleading article, they are selling to corporations already who in turn have plans to create a few fabs in Europe. So it is maybe more about European companies who are not buying, but that rests on difficult capital availability and fragmented nature of the continent. Europe is not one country after all, someone wants a fab in Germany, but the why is it not in France or Sweeden.
> we found no immediate increase in key engineering metrics such as monthly pull requests and lines of code
> To establish a before-Copilot baseline, we used data from April, May, and June 2024. After-Copilot data was represented by the period of September, October, and November 2024
> GitHub Copilot usage varied significantly among engineers, the tool demonstrably fostered positive changes in perceived engineer value, reduced time spent on various engineering activities, and boosted motivation and perceived skills
> subsequent monitoring of PRs and LOC for participants from December 2024 to May 2025 showed no statistical improvements
> the implications of more advanced capabilities, such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) over enterprise codebases or deeper engineering workflow integrations, warrant separate investigation
I think it is just out of date, habits have changed as well. I have not seen much gain personally at that period except in the last 12 months. Also, models not named, token counts not shown. Not to mention it was the older autocomplete + chat that were in use, these days it is much more advanced with RAG, cli use, MCPs, etc.
Despite the article looks like it talks about Claude, in reality it describes a new type of a job - a synthesis of data science, research, comp science, plus industry specific knowledge. Another extremely important thing is to have access to all related research in some programmatic way, this is for exploration, I do not think many have such access. Finally, you need to be prepared to read all those generated results and judge them effectively to pick the strands worth pursuing further. I bet you could do it with any model and your own harness, even authors admit they use their own to manage multiple sessions which hints that claude is not enough.
Just for the context UBI kind of already exists in some countries but in a different form. If you are in Ireland and do not work you get the benefits provided you have somewhere to live and can pick them up in the post office (~200eur/week). The problem is that it solves only part of the issue because people have to live somewhere, and sure the gov will even contribute towards it (they do already) but somehow not enough is being built. The benefit is basically not enough to get the mortgage, nor is there housing available.
Not vr/ar but 3d visualisations and walkthroughs were a thing like 20 years ago. I did try to leverage it with the clients but what happened was that once people could see everything they had more opinions about how to change it. It helped me to get clients though. Sometimes it would go on for quite a ”few” iterations. I think it is more scalable not to do it, i.e. not to be on the cutting edge, unless the customer pays premium for it. I am pretty sure vr/ar has the same challenges where people are like “oh I thought the ceiling was higher, can we increase it by 2 inches and move the stair case a bit?” then you do it and something is wrong again.
It looks like the message here is “make sure to use $100k worth of Claude when doing any analysis or evaluation” and the given examples show that prior effort could have been improved or made faster. But to me 100k is an opportunity cost, and there is a possibility that these results are not reproducible, so spending it on some researcher or a grad student would buy you more in a long term. If it was 1k then sure it is worth throwing at a large problem space to find things, like using fuzzing.
Went through the comments here and there and one thing to note is that there was a question about who do you think should have won instead. This is a good question because it is possible that all submissions were like this or there were ones that looked just worse. It would be quite useful to know who came close as well in this case. If you knew which submissions were good you could have a process to revoke the prize and give it to someone else in case of fraud or negligence or similar.
Having said that it is also possible that the mistakes and claims were a human error, sure a lot gets ai generated these days but there is a chance in which case the accusation does not look so severe anymore.
It was like a bunch of mythos scans through and through which then generated the reports for everyone to implement, not sure if in all orgs though. Mythos was great as it came from the top, i.e. a clear incentive. I think bug reporting otherwise does not reach the engineers unless an incident is raised by the customer care against a responsible team.
It might make even more sense once we get to the point of a wider use of encoding the data into dna. For now we have these few commercial players in the field that cad do it (eg look up dna microfactory for storage archiving), IIRC genomika was saying they can do an MB for a 100-200eur.
I did masters in a similar way, just to get some credentials and fill in the gaps and learn something new. There is an idealistic part to it which is quite romantic as you spend the nights learning and doing the assignments. The structure of such online based learning systems is great for a determined person. However the “other” part of such courses are cheating and ai use. It is depressing to know that the specific credentials prove little because of it. So the only valid signal is: this person did not quit and they know how to write a report, use references. You’d need to test them to fully validate the credential.
The problem is that it is quite difficult to access the published papers is you are not in academia or some company that pays for the access, so AA sort of serves that niche to transfer the knowledge. Training on the other hand is a commercial activity to later rent the model, if this would be purely for open weights I suspect everyone was cool with it.
I do not trust either but you have to at least agree that having some sort of mutually recognised data privacy framework is a good idea because the courts can enforce it then. Saying everything must be from EU is also slightly silly and we should instead have something similar like certification (cyber act ?) to ensure enough competition exists to avoid service degradation. IMO cryptography could be the answer to many privacy related issues for the cross border transfers.
Also these decisions related where the data is stored and which service is used are under control of each commercial org buying them. The risks are assessed at the end of the day and in case of any issues the providers change. Why would a publicly funded org store citizen data in the US is a question regardless of privacy laws though.
Privacy laws are actually one of the very useful things that came out. It is difficult to do the same in the US because of the business lobby. It is crazy that US citizens data can be purchased in the “black” market and the used by the agencies. Leaving tech companies to self regulate is just not viable and it is proven time and time again they cannot do it.
China is building for sure, but Russia? The majority of russia does not have normal roads, full of crappy old trains, and infrastructure which was built in the soviet times. Russia is a joke of a country, oligarchy and kleptocracy rules.
This example is a bit over the top and is more of an edge case, subagents of the same session can use the same VM because what is the point to isolate among them? If at least one subagent is trying to hack you then I would consider the whole session was compromised anyway as you cannot guarantee the agents leaking this among themselves.
Yeah I have some stuff which is supposed to be “there” for months with the agents continually moving it forward. Not to mention the need to run different software. Running local VMs for now.
I just went with qemu and run it in my own machine. It is portable so you run it on other OSes which is handy when everything is under the same desktop app. But I was after better isolation and the ability to be fully in control of the agent environment to pair with local llms. As soon as you lift it to some managed environment it becomes hard to justify all of the necessary steps to manage connections, encryption etc., eg passing credentials for access to other resources.
I do not see how it is clear and which license is affected. People mix up agpl license terms which is not clear if being violated here and copyright based on branding. agpl does not cover the looks, it is all about the copy-left nature and code availability. I use the same licensing but struggle to so how could you enforce it if the code is different (not sure if it is different here).
Being a bot of a devils advocate here. What I do not understand if it just looks similar, or implements the same features, or the code is actually copied and modified, i.e. the source is obviously from papermark. I think interfaces can be copied, thinking along the lines of implementing a protocol or a feature, so that would be legit. The UI looks very similar but if this is a totally different code then what? is it copyright infringement on the look and feel of the papermark brand?
Clearly it should be an issue for the investors anyway as it “looks” like a copy in the tweet alone, it might mean this code will eventually become available from download to comply with agpl, which in turn wipes out any moat.
Anyone can move the needle. Saying that languages are solved is not accurate as well. You could raise different questions like maybe model grounded in a different language will make it more efficient in some tasks, maybe language structure matters for a multidimentional space, maybe that matters for the distillation, etc. It is all about the ideas and their exchange, not about the investment rounds and MAU.
They have quite short cancellation notices and there is a question why do you need to rent it if you are an ai company? How is it grok not running the world using that compute.. And possible cancellation will erase a large income stream, think when gpus get old or sooner when Google does not need it anymore.
It is crazy that anything Europe gets so much hate. IMO it is important to build models within the boundaries of smaller nations, using their own language. Research has to continue even if it is outside of US and China.
Very much similar thoughts. The examples provided are not nerds, except a few. It is just tech is a lucrative path to make money and it attracts a variety of “interesting” personalities, specifically those that can captivate and persuade masses to invest in them. By all means tech is just a means to an end to such founders. A nerd is someone who is interested in tech for the sake of it, because it is beautiful, not because it will aid drones in killing targets more efficiently and not because it will land a great contract.
This takes me back close to 15 years ago: using backend session management in Grails and the html forms that were enhanced with “some” JS, using responsive CSS. The difference at that time was browser tech not being as advanced as now, we had to care for different browsers and deal with IE7 and even IE6, it was difficult and we needed extensive QA (Browserstack would appear later). There is a reason why we had JS library evolution. Dude there was no npm, not even bower. Then we had Backbone.js - loved it, then AngularJS - amazing, then Angular version which had huge breaking changes then React, Polymer etc. Native browsers can do a lot these days, it is easy to enhance the functionality as well. But it was not always the same, the decisions to use React made sense for a variety of reasons at the time, maybe it was the case here as well.