Because you think that current models can, in a practical sense, find an infinite number of vulnerabilities, or you think that they can find so many that it isn't possible to fix them?
In other words: do you think that the impossibility lines in exhausting the number finds or does the impossibility lie in fixing them?
In either case, do you think that this was also true pre-AI? That is to say: it was not possible to, given some set of practical resource constraints, find and fix all the vulnerabilities that a similarly-resourced group would find?
If so, then would you say that you just fundamentally don't believe in secure software and the only defense is lack of attention?
I think that there are, practically, infinite vulnerabilities in common and critical software - browsers, operating systems, etc. So discovering all of them is not tractable, and even if we 100x our rate of discovery it won't matter.
> In either case, do you think that this was also true pre-AI? That is to say: it was not possible to, given some set of practical resource constraints, find and fix all the vulnerabilities that a similarly-resourced group would find?
Yes.
> If so, then would you say that you just fundamentally don't believe in secure software and the only defense is lack of attention?
I believe in security software, few people are building it though and the majority of relevant attack surface is dogshit for security.
Squashing vulns via discovery is irrelevant to security. If we want safer software it has to be built to be safer.
My lab does fish population monitoring around the Bay, including the mouth of Alameda creek, so I suppose one entry in the "good problems to have" is another potential spot where we could start catching steelhead and chinook, given that we have an extremely limited allowance.
I don't believe that they have (yet) released a new display for the 12. But the 13 has gotten several upgrades, and I think the 16 just got it's first. So, most likely eventually yes.
This is an interesting claim to make. Up until quite recently (I mean that in the usual sense of the word, not the AI world sense of the word), almost no one had heard of Anthropic or Claude, despite an reasonably aggressive ad campaign, even at the point when most people would have known about ChatGPT.
Even now, I would guess that if you ask a normie off the street, they are far, far more likely to have heard of ChatGPT than Claude. Of course, Anthropic has been targeting businesses quite a bit harder than the general public for a while, so maybe that's not a fair test.
Anthropic inarguably does make an attempt at marketing their product. But I'm not convinced that the closing of the gap between them and OpenAI (as others have pointed out: I'm not sure it's defensible to claim that either is significantly ahead of the other given the paucity of available data, but they are certainly much closer than they were a year or two ago, when OpenAI was clearly in the lead) is mostly down to that. I think that, for a decent chunk of time (this one I mean in the AI world sense of the term), they had a very non-trivial lead in coding abilities. The developer and business world figured this out and jumped on board. That gap is largely now erased, but that's not enough to retake the momentum.
Pangram specifically (as opposed to most other detectors) publish internal audits, and seem to welcome external audits [0]. I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong, just that in my opinion they have earned a higher bar of criticism than random one off anecdote.
That's a fair criticism, I certainly didn't run a full benchmark. Just a few of my own pieces of writing. I also did it a few months ago, maybe it's gotten better since.
This seems like less of a reason to get off of Homeassistant and more a reason to stop buying closed source/cloud only products to connect to HomeAssistant.
The neo isn't upgradeable, but it also isn't sealed shut. It's actually one of Apple's most repairable devices. If I were in the market for this class of device, I personally would still go with Framework for a variety of reasons, but I still think it's important to give apple praise for the pro-consumer choices they made (and probably could have gotten away without) in the Neo.
I think this is part of the issue. Most activities can be divided into two categories (obviously this is only one of many different ways to categorize):
1. Things which are done primarily to accomplish a specific goal
2. Things which are done primarily for the joy of doing them.
Many tasks have aspects of both of these things. Automation, in all it's forms, is a way of maximizing the first, often at the expense of the second. When a new category of task first falls to automation, I think it takes a while for us to figure out how to pursue it solely for the second, but the two can co-exist. Backyard gardening and industrial agriculture both have their place.
Right now, coding and tech is, seemingly, in the middle of that transition. It's going to take a while before people learn to separate the two kinds of goal I think.
I enjoy playing with Lego. I would never use automation to do that for me. But, I wouldn't look down on someone who just wants pretty finished lego sets on their shelf without having to build them, and used automation (or hired someone or whatever) to build them.
I don't have patience for stuff like sewing or needle work. If I could automate that I would. But I know people who could spend hours on needle point or cross stitch or crocheting.
I also don't have patience for cooking or meal prep, even before AI. I'd batch cook protein and veggies and rice and we'd eat that for several days. AI has actually helped me streamline this in this regard, and it even helped me plan a special meal once a week that isn't just "eat for sustenance."
So I guess my point is. Automate the stuff you don't love. And spend more time on the stuff you do love.
Experience with modern society has shown that "third places" and human interactions get mowed over when you let algorithmic engagement take over. As I understood GP's point, the whole point of the "words on a shirt" was to get together as a group and attempt to form bonds, and by handing the task over to chatGPT they failed to do that.
Technically you can imagine a future where people use chatGPT "in moderation", but in practice they'll use it for everything and spontaneous/creative "hanging out" will suffer as a result.
reply