It would help if anyone just posting obvious lies like they’re jokes had a sense of humor instead, yes. “Just a prank, bro!” as a holiday sucks.

That’s not enabled by default afaik and it burns through way more tokens looping its output through several times. It also adds a bunch more context which will bring you that much closer to context collapse.

If it gets manually reviewed it’ll only be because this dogpile happened. Lots of people get banned like this with no recourse because they aren’t Paul McCartney

Are you actively ignoring the similarities between these instances or do you genuinely not understand that they’re both examples of strange and excessive moderation?

Yeah, the algorithms also form a similar feedback loop with their trades. Then you have people and competing algorithms predicting what those algorithms will do and trading based off that and the result is an entirely vibes based economy.

Much of the trading on Wall Street isn’t done by humans, and what remains of human trades are increasingly influenced by automatic tools. These tools and algorithms aren’t aware of context; they base their trades on moment to moment vibes, basically. They tap various news sources, social media posts, etc for signals that indicate a market direction.

Whatever the fuck it is it doesn’t need to know how old I am to do its job.

An init system does not need to know my personal details; it’s for starting programs in a specific order just fuck off with this shit. You don’t even have to capitulate to this stuff and these freaks are out here doing it preemptively like they expect a fucking pat on the head for being first in line to dive tongue first on to that boot.

Iran says he’s lying and there have been no discussions with any US representative. Pretty clear ploy to rig the markets; expect another empty threat on market close Friday

Even Bernie Sanders acknowledged on the senate floor that in a perfect world, where AI is owned by people invested in world benefit, moderate AI use could improve many people’s lives.

I don’t think you should make a claim like this while AI is being heavily subsidized and burning VC cash to stay afloat. The truth is whatever value it may add to such a society might actually be completely negated by it’s resource costs. Is even “moderate” AI use ecologically or economically sustainable?

ok well, the people who use github and write programs are probably a lot more likely to have experience with claude than you are so they probably didn’t make the same assumptions you did!

Because most people have at least tried these products and it’s not like the agent is being hidden away. It makes commits to your repo using its name as the author (for now).

Do you assume anyone who knows something you don’t has no life? Strange way to live.

cpython is the reference implementation of the python interpreter. The person who took this screenshot has the Claude user on GitHub blocked so that whenever it contributed to a git repo you see this warning. The Claude user is an AI agent. AI code is garbage.

We’re just going to see the head of state do a propaganda speech. Why is everyone being so political about it?

Pretty on the nose that the Israeli spyware company named their spyware after what we call people who sexually assault children.

I didn’t think you were making the post to defend Bitwarden or something. I was just adding the details of one of the exploits the paper found that directly contradicted their claim.

BW06: Icon URL Item Decryption. Items can include a URL field, which is used to autofill the credentials and display an icon on the client. The client decrypts the URL and fetches the icon from the server, including in its request the domain and top-level domain of the URL. For instance, if the URL is “https://host.tld/path”, the client request includes “host.tld”. This means that the adversary can learn (part of) the con- tents of URL fields. Using Attack BW05, an adversary can place the ciphertext of sensitive item fields, such as a user- name or a password, in the encrypted URL field. After fetch- ing the item, the client will then decrypt the ciphertext, confus- ing it for a URL. If the plaintext satisfies some conditions (i.e. containing a ‘.’ and no !), it will be leaked to the adversary. A URL checksum feature was deployed in July 2024, mak- ing the clients store a hash of the URL in another encrypted item field, therefore providing a rudimentary integrity check and preventing this attack. Note that old items are never up- dated to add such a checksum: this feature only protects items created after its introduction. Furthermore, URL checksums are only checked if a per-item key is present for the item. As we will see, an adversary can prevent per-item keys from being enabled with Attack BW10.

IMPACT. The adversary can recover selected target ciphertexts in the item, such as the username or the password.

REQUIREMENTS. The user opens a vault containing items that do not use per-item keys (i.e., items created before July 2024, or after Attack BW10 is run). The target plaintext must satisfy some additional conditions, detailed in Appendix

– from the paper the article is discussing

So you could potentially expose your passwords to a compromised server or some kind of MITM. If they meet the conditions for the validation check, anyway.

So he used an AI tool to “organize” references and it hallucinated crap that made it into the human-written article because he never reviewed the output for accuracy.

This guy writes about AI for a living, he knows it hallucinates, and he even acknowledges the irony but never explains why he thought experimenting with AI was a good idea to begin with. Am I supposed to assume his judgment was impaired by being sick?

You don’t need to apologize. It’s a good game worth recommending as long as you don’t pay that guy for it.

They’re just doing meow sounds for the cats. It’s not even worth the controversy he caused by doing it. Could have literally recorded himself meowing as he suggested and no one would have known or cared.