pyth0

Because if you have hundreds or thousands of them you presumably want a way to control and monitor them.

What does this mean?

Antifa is not one organization, that's ridiculous. It would be like claiming that "Anarchists" are a terrorist organization.

Riveting discussion. How about you reply with something of substance instead of just presumptuous and pedantic quips.

I have first hand experience. Also "depression" is different from "chronic depression". You can experience the former as the direct result of some cause.

Chronic depression doesn't usually have a "cause" that you can fix without some form of treatment. It happens that these meds often do remove the extreme effects of depression and allow you to focus on other problems.

> And there are also many instances of [...] those cops being sued, losing qualified immunity, losing their jobs

Not really, the data points the other way. Cops basically never have to actually pay for their wrongdoings. Over 99.98% of money successfully recovered from cases against police is paid out by the cities, not cops personally [1]. A considerable number of cops that are fired are also eventually rehired by the same department [2] or a different one [3]. So I don't think it's that clear that you "have recourse when cops do the wrong thing".

[1] https://nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawRe...

[2] https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol74/iss4/4/

[3] https://yalelawjournal.org/pdf/GrunwaldRappaportArticle_s6br...

Did you stop reading at the em-dash?

> Artificial Intelligence is writing about as well as humans — at least well enough to cause confusion and speculation

No matter your opinion on AI writing, this is just a fact.

This is literally the point of stacked PRs. You implement the refactor in branch A, then branch B is created on top of that so you can implement your feature. Then you make separate PRs, one for merging branch A into main, and another for merging branch B into A. The GitHub feature just provides a nicer UX when interacting with such PRs by clearly showing dependency and allowing you to merge a stack together.

That is in fact the point of this. Split your large feature into smaller, more manageable PRs and have them still be connected within GitHub.

> What's much less believable is the way they frame it: the model escaped, and did it on its own.

That's clearly what happened though, based on the detailed postmortem. The model was instructed to pass the benchmark (that's the harness that was involved, the ExploitGym harness), and the model determined on it's own that the easiest way to achieve the the goal was to gain access to the answers directly from HF. Which is what it did.

You might be able to say that HF made some amateurish mistakes, but this attack certainly was fairly sophisticated. It relied a number of separate exploits or vulnerabilities that it combined and used over the course of multiple days. Calling it otherwise seems to be downplaying it.

Just so I understand your objection, they are woke because in the game one of their studios made, the woman in the game wasn't attractive enough for you?

Under which OS would a website not be sandboxed? It's the browser doing the sandboxing, not the OS.

No obviously not. But this is silly framing because there are so many things we do because it increases the effort for bad actors to do bad things. We close and lock our doors not because it prevents break-ins, but because that is a barrier that makes breaking in more inconvenient.

Are we really pretending like the effort to do something doesn't affect how often that thing occurs?

I totally intended to say "let's not pretend that ... will NOT be able to". Typo and poorly worded, my mistake. I completely agree that the prior experience significantly amplifies what you can do with an LLM over someone without experience.

I take amphetamines prescribed by a doctor for ADHD, and without them I am considerably less effective. And the same way your amphetamine analogy doesn't work, I think it similarly doesn't work for LLMs either. At the end of the day if you are more effective with something than without it, it would be silly to avoid it out of some sense of "purity".

> It's a pretty high moat getting into stuff like simulation software

I'm currently working on a simulation/game about space and orbital mechanics. I have a lot of software experience, I know how to build large projects and architect my code, and I know how to to test the end result to ensure I'm getting what I want. But I also don't have a strong math or physics background. In my experience, Claude (Opus 4.6+) has had no issues writing any simulation or game related math code. And the key thing is, I don't need to have a PhD in astrophysics to verify interactively and visually that everything is working as I expect to. I just have an interest in space, and a basic understanding of the physics involved.

> it's often applied mathematicians and physicists turned devs that work on this stuff.

It's true that this has been the case, but I also would not have been able to implement what I'm doing now without these models (at least without dedicated a huge amount of time on learning all of the physics and math). So I think this domain specific knowledge is becoming less of a moat than people realize. At least that's my perspective on the specific area I'm working on, but I don't have a hard time believing it extends to other domains, provided there is ample information about them online to have trained on.

You answered your own question... you are needed to tell it what to do. Let's not pretend that someone with prior software skills will be able to produce larger scale and/or higher quality work compared to someone with no experience.

I don't assume anything either, but a single Google search is enough to dispel that [1]

[1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/virtualization/vzv...

To me, and devs at large (given their market share), that sounds like convenience.

I don't understand why someone would go through the effort to prompt that when the comments it suggested are total garbage, and it seems like would take similar effort to produce a low quality human written comment.

Can you explain what features you're talking about? Do you mean stuff like "shorts"?

It's fucking weird and creepy, and it's sexual harassment.

This feels like an incredibly disingenuous comparison and I suspect you know that. But just to play along, real artists had to design the character models, real filmmakers had to decide which shots to capture, real editors had to put that together to make a cohesive story. Also they almost certainly went through color grading after having completed the rendering, so the colors are certainly selected by humans to produce a nice looking composition.

If you want to make your comment useful, you could share some information about where you understand policing in America to have originated.

That's fair, though I never implied that there were no side effects. The part I was trying to point out in the quote was the mention of it being addictive which is not really supported, nor is that mentioned in the article.

Okay, so what makes you believe that about prozac (or SSRIs) then?

How can you believe it's both "no better than placebo" but also that it's "going to have his brain chemistry altered and essentially be addicted to a drug". SSRIs are not considered addictive, though people can develop a dependence if it provides them significant improvement.