d0mine

Only a tiny proportion of people can run software not signed/approved by a multibillion-dollar corporation even today.

Additionally, any capable local model can be reclassified as “cybersecurity risk”, not enough “safety guardrails” to run locally, etc

containerd (docker) uses it

Isn’t the point of TLA+ is to model aspects of design at such high level that no deterministic generation is practical as a rule. The TLA+ models may be useful for LLMs (help find real bugs).

You might like pilish in emacs. pi has plugins and you can modify most things even on the fly in emacs.

If you decided to use an umbrella to protect something during a hurricane and umbrella breaks and your thing is ruined. Whose fault is that?

Distributing signed artifacts is a solved problem (until NP=P is cracked at least).

I provided thousands of answers on SO (1/3..1/2 accepted?). I can tell from experience that most questions were complete and utter garbage — questions that could have been solved with a single google search at the time. Most of them were answered many many times almost daily.

It is a good thing LLMs exist. Even current capabilities are above median of effort demonstrated by those questions. My target audience was people coming from google (first) and questions authors (second) — but even then you burn out after a while.

Mismanagement and forgetting its roots were just the final nail long before AI.

Unfortunately, “lost” wallet in public places is a common scam

https://www.thestandard.com.hk/news/article/321034/Resurgenc...

For me, it is the opposite. It may be slower but it follows the rules better and makes less stupid mistakes, it takes less time to merge the solution.

It is the usual mistake to think that it does not use Python as intended (offload number crunching parts into C/C++/Fortran code eg numpy is older than many here.

Parsing JSON at tens of gigabytes per second… in Python

https://lemire.me/blog/2026/10/12/parsing-json-at-tens-of-gi...

~Zero build time Python vs 20 min for Rust web app

System that requires police to police itself does not work.

Selective enforcement is worse than no law at all.

"table" is not a concept that's really supported by particle physics.

Current inequality is greater, not talking what AI wealth distribution will look like.

Have you ever asked a long distance runner how are they feeling during a run?

It is literally true when you are going in circles ;)

It is not clear whether models will be both capable enough and cost effective enough but not as capable to wipe us all out. The outcome is a tiny sliver of possible futures and even then likely short-lived.

Current capabilities are not there. You need software engineers to keep it going. And even then as intoxicating as it might be to be able to bring to life all the side projects you often had no energy/skill to finish, today it is still may be cost / “cognitive load” -effective to buy off the shelf apps that somebody else has to maintain (even if they are not as personal / less customized for your use-case).

Are you including cyber-testing by UK AI Safety Institute in this list?

Sure, the models are capable (for some test tasks, though they are not omnipotent yet) but does it mean the actual OAI sandbox is adequate? Could have a competent engineer done better and made the escape less likely?

It may be even simpler: plain markdown files that explain architecture including C4 diagrams generated from text using plantuml (automated via invoke/fabric/whatever). Plantuml includes C4 in stdlib https://github.com/plantuml-stdlib/C4-PlantUML

"can I do something [at all]" vs "how [easy] can I do something"

It is not about age. It is just a way to tie accounts to a real life identity.

It won't be surprising if the requirement comes from some alphabet agency.

Middle may be wrong (it is a marketing trick to add 3rd outragesly expensive option, to make 2nd option look reasonable). The correct answer is “it depends” (even how long you should spend on choosing may depend on context too).

For example, write in whatever language you know best, then translate to a more appropriate language using LLMs once the desired behavior can be checked automatically. It is a tactic that works in some cases.

“Strong appearing individuals“ just expose what is already there.

That is why Voldemort always comes back in real life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIv1f2AwFCI

At the moment, the hurdle is [missing] context [aka shared model/understanding of the business, common sense].

Though it is not hard to imagine that any and all communications being recorded for AI consumption in the future.

The Next one is the relative lack of prompt feedback (expect the blowup in finite time like Navier-Stokes ;) [there is not much feedback even for humans at middle management positions].

The cost [tokens] might become prohibitive unless LLMs improve further [not a guarantee].

Is the implication that those who impose these sanctions can MITM anybody in the world except for countries under sanctions (which have to use their own root CAs)?

I've only heard of OpenAI and Anthropic agents hacking during training. Are open weights model not smart enough to hack Hugging Face to copy solutions? (doubtful)

MAD is a belief system. It doesn't matter whether AI can effectively stop the retaliation, it is enough that people making the decisions believed that it can (are we there already?).

It is not “worst-case” (as the post demonstrates, you can get worse results by using specifically crafted data that exploits hash collisions). There are algorithms that can get you O(logN) instead of O(N) even on such data.

Note: weather observations being truly random data has been proved just recently (Navier-Stokes equations)

> we use “malicious” to describe code that goes out of its way to trick or mislead the user, exploit bugs or compromise the system. This includes un-reviewed AI-generated proofs and programs.

It is interesting that AI-generated proofs are described as malicious by Lean docs unless reviewed.