It's true. It says a bunch about their competitors where Nvidia isn't at their a game and have been offering 8Gb cards for a solid decade and nobody out competed them. But also gamers pride themselves on how cheap they are and how they can get a deal, it's not surprising that companies simply just give Nvidia more cash.
Due to the small nature of hot patching (eg. bump this dependency, rotate these keys, turn off that config, follow the runbook) it will unlikely need to be a frontier model and is likely able to be done LocalLLM/Jev style decision making rather than having to hand all the keys to frontier model operators.
I fully believe the only sustainable future is that hot patching will need to itself become fully automated. Hot patch now with a minimal allowed amount of line changes to head off the AIs, review it in office hours for auditing and the team is actually awake.
My second belief is that environment variables as a development concept will need to be retired. If it's something that causes a security breach if it by its mere existence on a public git repo, it is information that by design cannot ever pass to a filesystem out of a chain of trust, not by mere development conventions people choose to adhere to.
Not advocating this, just more addressing the mindset on it, but in the game of office politics people don't mention concerns ahead of time because they don't want to give the opposing view point opportunity to research how to defeat their argument in a meeting, not that they "can't" give an intelligent response. They're choosing not to in their own self interest.
"The enemy must not know where I intend to give battle; for if he does not know where I intend to give battle, he must be prepared in a great many places. And when he prepares in a great many places, those I have to fight in any one-given place will be but few."
I mean, doesn't this exact statement also apply to the adoption of AI and all the winters that have come before this wave?
Also as someone doing my own implementation at the moment, I expect that there is a big relational database backing the MELT store, just the graph aspect is functionally a big RAG interface on top of it acting as a search cache, not itself the data store.
My local knowledge graph dropped my token usage spend on reads from being 30% of total spend to 2% and I haven't suffered a regex false positive deleting 300 lines of code randomly since. As of this weekend it also now feeds my QA metrics, replacing what was multiple tool calls taking multiple seconds down to about 25ms because it's a single cached graph traversal now rather than multiple tools traversing the same ground repeatedly.
The AAA industry is broken. But there is nothing to repair. The indie industry will continue telling new stories without it. Every gamer will have no shortage of finding games to play. The only problem is if your goal is to employ hundreds or thousands of people and extract money from your audience. If you're in the business of making games and entertaining people, you're already just fine.
The Military has the "Survivability Onion", Security through Obscurity is the "Don't be seen" layer, while "Security by Velocity" would be the "Don't be acquired" layer.
TIL! Close, just taken up a notch that wasn't feasible before where MTD was more configuration focused. As CPUs are to FPGAs, MTD would be to this. Rather than telling the config to change on the fly, the code changes on they fly. And rather than having multiple Binaries prepared, the pipeline of changing binaries are more just-in-time than batched.
I think Anthropic, a company with no historical skin in the game can come at the problem clean slate and only need to take on the core enterprise coding component. They don't need to worry about being production infrastructure, the don't need to be a connector to their own cloud service like Microsoft needed to feed into Azure. AI isn't something to attach onto source control/cloud, rather the source control is something to attach onto AI development. I don't think Anthropic needs to become a Microsoft competitor, I think they're going to need to become an Nvidia competitor in building a vertical enterprise AI company. Not a cloud, desktop OS, search, gaming or browser company. Just deliver the end to end code tooling cycle. Which probably means in the future they're also going to need to make inroads on Linear/Atlassian, but that's a separate conversation.
Agreed, they probably don't. But the financials of other companies clearly say that they are not above leasing further compute capacity from Oracle and X and would be part of a narrative that they need to IPO to raise money for such projects rather than it just being a naked payday.
If there is very little benefit to them by releasing it, that's a lack of imagination on their part. Being able to disrupt Microsofts, dare I say, number one beachhead into developers and their development ecosystem and bringing AI first developers into Anthropics own vertical AI development ecosystem is pretty damn core to winning the future potential avenue for the software industry at large. It won't pay off in the next five years, but it could pay off big in ten.
Imagine waking up next week and Claude Code now ships free with builtin source control management via this tech with a better user experience than workspaces. Github and Microsoft would take an instant market share hit in the traffic that they swear is causing all of their outages. And then that cuts off Microsofts access to code to train their own LLMs on in the background, further hampering an Anthropic competitor in the AI race.
I have a theory (loosely held, it's just an idea, not a belief) that this could lead to something I call Evolutionary Architecture. That instead of waiting for vulnerabilities to be discovered in code, that systems could end up with code being changed and re-implemented by agents so fast that attacks aren't able to probe for attacks because they end up probing code that by the time the answer is come it, in production that code no longer exists because it was moved to another language or something. The change to prevent vulnerabilities isn't the reason for change, but the change has defensive side effects.
All of this may be slightly inspired by the Militech neural matrix in Cyberpunk 2077
It's like when Tony Hawk did a 900 for the first time. Now 900s in skateboarding aren't a big deal, kids can do it now. It was proving to the world what was possible was the mental hurdle that inspires others to actually try at the problem harder.
If AI development is like management, harnesses will totally end up orchestrating people like traditional management does. The end state of the Jev type model hype is that a few years from now decision models replace management decision. Disconnected human managers five levels away from the work make suboptimal decisions all the time, the same logic applied to self driving cars can play out here. The model doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to make better informed decisions than your fallible VP.
This is great, more access did provide more eyes on these problems.
But, does that all of these being found now call into question, not the open source model logic itself, but the ability of human eyes to find security issues? These vulnerabilities have been sitting here for however long, but how many thousands of humans did not find them before AI?
Also, while it's clearly got a lot of training on some use cases, others that probably weren't in the training set have worse good decision rates than a random number generator. If you can rebuild the architecture, you can train it on your use case.
I think the idea of a "feature startup" is dead. What used to be a niche subscription business is now an individual Epic level of work. The smallest viable business becomes what two or three years ago was a mid tier enterprise. It is no longer "look at this tool I maintain", but "we take this specific approach using these hundreds of tools merged together to solve a problem in a specific way that nobody is going to compete with. Not because they can't compete if they wanted to, but that the competitions approach diverges in fifty different chosen ways that they are targeting a different market segment essentially."
I adhere to the idea that this is software's "Tower of Babel" moment where everyone just fundamentally ships things in completely diverging architectures, because creating a ground up architecture is no longer something that needs to be avoided for an economically viable business mode that in the past two decades would have otherwise incentivized people into industry standards. In a world where "taste" is the focus, single ingredients in the recipe aren't enough.
Considering how core Wireguard is to the whole Tailscale value proposition, are they funding the future of that V2 roadmap on the open source side? If the answer is "no", and because the security world isn't going to stay put (particularly with AI math advancements happening lately are accelerating medium term risk), then one has to assume Tailscale is working on it's own in-house "V2" equivalent protocol for post-quantum support to enable that vision? I doubt you're doing nothing.
Australia doesn't have protected speech. We're starting to see the dam break where rules that were left unexplored because it would go against the US driven view of globalization is starting to wane due to the US's loss (self destruction?) of its soft power.