118 karma · joined February 8, 2016
Languages == Python only
Libraries (um looks like other LLM generated libraries -- I mean definitely not pure human: like Ragas, FastMCP, etc)
So seems like a highly skewed sample and who knows what can / can't be generalized. Does make for a compelling research paper though!
Is this level of fear typical or reasonable? If so, why doesn’t Anthropic / AI code gen providers offer this type of service? Hard to believe Anthropic is not secure in some sense — like what if Claude Code is already inside some container-like thing?
Is it actually true that Claude cannot bust out of the container?
And in general if you have an LLM that performs really well on one d_i then who cares. The goal in LLM evaluation is to find a good performing LLM overall.
Finally, it feels that your Abstract and other snippets sound like an LLM wrote them.
Good luck.
Issuer: McAfee OV SSL CA 2
Expires on: Aug 3, 2023
Current date: Jul 8, 2023
PEM encoded chain: -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- MIIGfzCCBWegAwIBAgIQKt9VNrFtaozA1bILX1OcfzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADBk MQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMCQ0
Isn't that interesting? The idea of "mental liquidity", or "strong opinions weakly held"? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36280772
Basically they show that larger models have an easier time giving up their semantic priors, so that, in the context of OP paper, learning the mapping for len becomes print and print becomes len.