112233

If restaurant asks to only eat the food you bought there at their tables, the question is not "but what if food from other places also is good"?

Can't wikipedia ask who and it what way writes content on their pages?

"if correct, obviously" - please elaborate. I do not see how this is obvious. Or how being correct is obvious.

Not to mention this exact question is being discussed in the article.

Does it have (or can it in principle support) "parallel" pools? So that structs can be stored in "columnar" fashion, yet accessed without knowing the particular way they are sliced?

the qwen flash next result is the actual interesting part. The 27b dense model has more active parameters than, e.g. latest deepseek flash.

exactly. somehow many people have the idea that C-like imperative code harbours bugs because it cannot be formally reasoned about, and the answer is writing code that can be formally reasoned about.

That the resulting code is many orders of magnitude larger and more complicated than the "informal" original, and often simply cannot exist, and is incomprehensible to most humans if it does, is left as an exercise for the reader.

I mean, formal methods cannot even prove collatz conjecture terminates. Somehow that thing seems to be running some sort of almost turing complete machine in the number encoding. Good luck formalizing existing software!

(where in the article did you read about OpenAI working with researchers to publish vulnerabilities?)

Yes, exactly, that is my premise (minus the "working with researchers" bit). The current rate of exploitation is direct consequence of actions of Anthropic, OpenAI, Alibaba and whoever else is making these things. How can I know my false premise is true? By looking at the situation just a year ago, that is how!

You are focused on the binary: vulnerability exists or it does not. It can be exploited or it can not.

That is not what is causing the issues!

The fact that vulnerabilities exist is not being disputed, and is not causing any controversy. The fact that vulnerabilities are getting exploited does. Even having AI that would simply find all existing vulnerabilities and list them would not be as destructive as current situation. The same AI that finds the previously unknown vulnerability also finds the way to exploit it (NOT THE SAME THING), writes actually usable exploit (also not the same thing), then orchestrates and oversees the mass campaign. THAT is what makes current situation unsustainable.

Let's all recall old times when vulnerabilities of this magnitude were discovered - windows defender had some nice ones, linux kernel did, a lot of software did. They got discovered, communicated to vendor, patches were made, people updated.

Now? You have HOURS from discovery to full-out campaign. You published a patch? HOURS before it is disassembled, all fixed bugs PoC-ed and full out campaign started. You cannot update anything meaningfully in that window of time.

Both my analogies use hyperbola to comically exaggerate the claimed lack of any difference. just as claiming that advancing a demise of a human makes no difference because it will eventually happen, or claiming that breaching a bank in practice is not a big deal because it was possible in theory, so also claiming that theoretic possibility of a vulnerability being exploited is more or less the same as many of them being exploited at the same time.

The covid was not a lot deadlier and not a lot more contagious than normal seasonal flu. That "not a lot" overloaded hospitals and caused global shutdown.

The increase in rate at which software is being breached right now in in no way "not a lot". Devs were overloaded even without this deluge. We can tank one such php exploit. Then another one. But for how long? If all your smartcards, secure elements, cloud providers, wireless protocols, drivers, government registries etc etc will be having weekly breaches of this magnitude, won't the effect be systemic?

Ah yes. Everyone eventually dies, we just shorthen the wait.

This is like telling that bank vaults always were breachable, and giving out explosives to everyone just made them get breached sooner.

(edit: fact of existance of a vulnerability is not a binary yes/no. the amount of effort needed to exploit even known vulnerabilities is usually staggering, requiring months from very capable individuals with very specific skillset.)

Are you sure providers allow you to submit modified assistant turns? Because, if they do, great! Last I heard most of that was neutered, with some providers (ahem anthropic) even signing everything and encrypting the "precious" thinking turns

my local experiments showed any tricky scheme I could come up beaten by plain large window zstd. both on speed and resulting size (memory needed for the window is another matter completely). zstd also was beating the git xdelta+deflate.

The most "free lunch" actually is compressing fast export (or similar format) — if the goal is packing repo as small as possible, then all the SHA in commits and tree objects are derivative incompressible data, and plain references like in fast export can even halve archive size

Same. After this, it becomes "abuse department" skit from monty python. The model constantly generates strongly abusive language (weaponized incompetence after user detects that model was lying and fabricating success reports, and had made fake work; blaming user; mansplaining its own hallucinations -- all the while user is forced to consume that because the important information is not located at predictable position in output text), but usually it was possible to temper the model behaviour by calling out such behaviour out in very strong terms. If now that is being disabled, then using Anthropic models becomes such high mental hazard, it simply is not worth any percieved benefit.

I made my own with AI! It does the thing I need that no existing software does!

I do not however feel urge to upload it an ask strangers to look at what code tool assembled from bits and pieces of existing software by hallucinating into compiler.

It is objectively bad. Also very fun. Even useful. I do not understand the bit about publishing though.

Once this starts being actual pain, we will each vibe the replacement index creator (git already supports replacement objects), for back-forth conversion, populated on pack and object indexing.

For massive perf and mem use damage. But oh well. And then we will wait for official version

In my domain, code size is critical, so we use -fno-exceptions and -fno-rtti from necessity, for a good reason. Which means our code is non-conformant C++. Committee forces everyone to have exceptions and rtti always.