As someone not super familiar with bankruptcy procedure: why do they auction off exclusive access to the data? Couldn't they make more money by, say, taking the top N offers, where N is "small" (e.g., ≤5)? Or does that depress the price too much?
In theory, a buyer could always execute that strategy after the sale, so it's essentially "priced in". By keeping the auction exclusive, the seller also keeps the possibility that the data is worth more to someone as an exclusive asset.
That's what thinking output is for, right? Mixing random tokens that live roughly in the same semantic realm, throwing them at the wall, and seeing what sticks? Hopefully, this backticks concern didn't stick.
I thought this was ironic because there's no good way to actually restrict which commands the AI runs save for sandboxing; and here it was expressing concern about OS command injection in the git commit message string argument to git.
How to not use the equivalent of what subprocess calls (shell=True) which does exec code in backticks?
Would single quotes solve this
Which types of documents have this particular AI vulnerability?
At least for Claude Code, putting "run /simplify at the end" in an "implement the plan" skill helps a little. It still often leaves new code in bizarre places, and/or with bad/alien-sounding names and comments.
Sloppy, non-privacy-preserving "analytics" set up by some communications intern ≠ malice. They can mean well and still do a poor job. True privacy on the internet is notoriously hard.
Sorry, no. Code doesn't magically go from the intern's workstation to live. If the chain of incompetence is that long, then the most generous read is that they don't care
Could've been as simple as installing and configuring some off-the-shelf "analytics" and "cookie banner" plugins for their content management system. Unfortunately, the chain of incompetence is that long, because these orgs do not attract talent that understands these things.
I suspect many competent devs in the industry would find it sensible if Anthropic used their products as light-touch "assistants" sometimes. But yeah, it wouldn't fit the outside narrative that's formed and conveniently propped up valuations.
It seems "Mythos is really good at finding vulnerabilities" has been what people took away from the Project Glassing announcement, which makes sense. Unfortunately for Anthropic, most seem to have forgotten the best argument Anthropic had for holding Mythos back from the general public, "it's crazy good at crafting exploits". Then, without that context, the tinfoil hats came out.
> Introduce and enforce structs for passing context and input shapes around. So as to stop fighting with NULLs, lack of keys in maps and other maddening cases that inflate your coding lines for no other reason than programming languages not having higher-order constructs on well-researched and mostly resolved computer science problems
It's not that much of a tangent tbf. It's one of the things that is an endless churn in millions of codebases out there and yet no core programming language team has the courage and the grit to solve this problem.
Those who tried are only doing it in mostly academic/toy languages which is a damned shame. We _really_ need those constructs, compile-time enforced, in commercial codebases, like 25 years ago at least!
People are trying everywhere though but I've witnessed CTOs getting cold feet and fearing their codebase will get too abstract or hard to maintain when they hire the next dev.
Group-think and conformism and fear of change, demonstrated live, every day. :/
Once upon a time, I thought I wanted to learn cursive handwriting. Except this version of me was already in his 20s, would be out of school in a matter of months, and quickly realized the skill would be of such marginal utility in the future that it wasn't worth the hours spent tracing out giant letters like a kindergartener every day.
One could learn this skill in their 20s or beyond, but there's an opportunity cost – why not something else that would actually improve work performance, or that you enjoy doing?
I still wish I'd been taught in elementary school, though, because it would've been really useful as a student. Some of our teachers discreetly handed out practice booklets to students who'd "expressed interest" (their parents taught them the basics and teacher noticed); most of us were not so lucky.
Does "applying knowledge" necessitate human-like intentionality and theory of mind? If you insist it does, and this is a category error, then we need a new category.
By analogy, consider that many have referred to classical, deterministic computing as some kind of "thinking" for the last half century+. Does this stop being kosher when the computer has an uncanny propensity for human language? Perhaps, but the computer is still clearly chewing through problems that would have required a lot of human thinking (e.g., arithmetic) in ages past.
I haven't seen any genuine proposals for words to replace the human mind analogues, let alone proposals that the anglosphere would plausibly adopt en masse.
Claude in general probably increases observed bugs in rsync, because it can churn out vulnerability reports that necessitate tons of changes to software that people are accustomed to working flawlessly in non-pathological use cases.
I don't have empirical evidence for this claim, but best I can tell, security patches are the principal source of observed bugs in software of a certain vintage, because they cause churn. (Just think of Windows updates that break drivers.)
