akerl_

That is in fact the idea, and was on purpose.

These were different goals.

They wanted to keep the models from copying off of each others’ homework because it mucks with the test results.

They wanted to sandbox them from the Internet to avoid unintended impact on outside systems.

Hosting a shared package mirror is generally good practice for the latter.

Sure. They weren’t trying to isolate the models from each other, and that wasn’t the issue. They were trying to isolate them from the rest of the world.

Hosting an artifactory instance to mirror packages for internal systems is exactly the kind of thing that would be part of normal efforts to sandbox them from the internet and other systems.

I'm really confused by the mindset where you'd look for an About page and read the FAQ but the second sentence on the page is a step too far.

The first paragraph on the page seems pretty descriptive?

I think you've pretty significantly misread the thread.

Nobody in this thread has attributed anything to "some malicious dude".

Yes. I believe that using CVSS scores as a first pass to decide which vulnerabilities to review is risky.

The most boring reason, even if you take CVSS scores at face value, is that in many cases it is possible to leverage multiple "low" severity vulnerabilities into a massive impact.

But the bigger reason is that CVSS scores are all over the place, and the people operating roulette wheel that generates them do not have any insight into any specific person's systems.

Did you mean to comment this somewhere else? It doesn't really seem connected to this comment branch.

CVSS is impossible to communicate effectively. We don't need a metric; I'm already going to have to read and assess the vulnerability to decide how I actually want to assess the risk given my infrastructure, so the number's not doing me any good.

This isn't just a CVSS issue: there have been a variety of attempts to reduce a risk score down to a single general number and they all end up as somewhere between marketing material, scare tactic, and junk science.

So if I get a 9.8 that doesn't apply to my usage, what is the CVSS score doing for me?

That doesn’t read like a backdoor or like the community pushing somebody out.

Who?

Do you have something you want to discuss about the actual point I’m making, or are you acting strictly on behalf of the metaphor police?

We're pretty off track given that ya'll are nitpicking the metaphor rather than the actual topic, but claiming that horses were never common doesn't really have any connection to the claim that per-mile-moved / per-human-carried, horses are also dangerous.

It seems really convenient for you to speculate about my level of expertise so that then you can make claims that no senior engineers think something.

Given that the overwhelming majority of Linux distros have moved to systemd, it's not clear why the pro-systemd camp would need to be finding or making opportunities to rally.

They're spending their time build and improving systemd's set of building blocks.

What criminal enterprise does getting private OpenAI repos fit into?

Do they? Horses aren't particularly safe, there's just way fewer of them and they don't travel as many miles.

Jokes aside, I think this gets at the core of it.

If you really loved horseback riding, or you really loved breeding and training horses, or you were really good at it, I'm sure that cars fucked up your day, and that it sucked to see cars replace horses.

I'm sure there were plenty of people who said that cars were horrible and that we should stick with horses. I'm equally sure there have been C programmers looking derisively at Python programmers, Python programmers looking derisively at Node programmers, etc etc.

But there's a pretty big gap between the feeling of unhappiness that something you liked is no longer as in-demand / profitable / common / whatever, and saying that cars aren't useful and we're all worse off for letting our horse-riding skills degrade.

I guess I'm an outlier then.

AI has radically improved my ability to parse and understand new codebases, to validate my hypotheses, and to work in complex systems.

I wish I knew what I was doing differently than almost every developer.

The best carpenter obviously doesn't use any power tools. Are they allowed to use hand tools, or do they need to split the wood with their bare hands?

It's not clear to me why programming is inherently analytical and logic-driven but prompting and iterating with an AI is not. What about Applescript, where it's programming but in something closer to natural language?

The core of this seems to be that there are people who assume that users of AI turn their brains off the moment they open a Claude prompt. There are surely some people who are doing that, but there were also plenty of people who were shipping sloppy code before. There are far more people for whom this another tool in their toolbox.

You’re already using a computer to automate massive amounts of what used to be manual human effort.

Why is using AI tools self-debasing or degrading?

I'd be in favor of a more updated rule saying "direct job offer". But the post as it currently exists seems to not make that distinction.

How is a hiring platform reaching out to you not related to work opportunities?

Am I missing something? You posted that you wanted to be hired, some job placement firms reached out, referencing your post.

There are people commenting parallel to you saying they are upset about AI companies scraping the web.

Are they distilling?

Distilling isn’t copying and redistributing, for the same reason that you reading a story and then writing your own story based on ideas you learned is different from you reading a book, writing all the words down verbatim, and then publishing it as your own.