AspireOne

Regular people are often bad guys too, you know. If the reality was "bad guys will have it. Should regular people too?" The entire core dilemma would be entirely eliminated lol.

I'll be honest, I have no idea what gopher or ring NIC is, lol.

Thank you!

Do you remember details about the rm -rf ~/ folder thing? Model, harness (omp?), context window size, reasoning effort (none/low VS anything higher is enough), when it happened?

Without those details, it's an interesting cautionary tale and a valid anecdote, but as actual practical datapoint, it's useless.

> What's preventing me from feeding this into Claude and reconstructing the company for $200?

Like, everything. For starters.

You deserve a medaile for this.

Man... This is so sad, disappointing and worrying. For some reason, your explanation in particular struck a nerve with me. Who could have predicted all the nuanced social consequences that AI would bring upon us. I don't yet know what position to take in my head on all of this. It's too much change, despite believing that the world will change and adapt. In particular, that human work will become more valuable - but as a craft. As an endeavor you do because it's artful, not because it's mandatory, or the most optimal way to quality or speed. And those two categories - human and ai work - will become very separate. While the economical value or even expectations of absolute quality in the human work will plummet.

Similarly, I expect "raw"-ness to gain on value. Photos untouched by AI or filters. Physical objects. The non-digital. Who knows, maybe physical media will make a comeback.

Either way, it's not good times we're living through, and I don't particularly appreciate all of this happening after *just* becoming an adult in the world.

As somebody who attempted that recently, I seriously doubt that percentage :D

I disagree with this completely.

I am glad about it as well. Don't get me wrong, I love OSS, I love personally being able to get my hands on the frontier stuff and frontier cybersec capabilities, and I dislike a few entities having exclusivity on it. Everybody does. But that absolutely doesn't mean it's the correct approach. I think people are blinded a little bit by general principles and by personal feelings, rather than operating from a point of pragmatism, consequences, and the big picture.

Also, to note: I don't claim to have the answers either. I don't even hold a strong position on this issue yet. I'm just sharing some of my intuitions, and reacting to people who, as far as I'm concerned, are making this issue all too simple.

The Pandora box can expand even further, and it matters. If it didn't matter, like you seem to be suggesting, then by the same logic there isn't a reason to push for further open-source development.

> Kneecapping cyber vulns only serve governments.

Uhh, no? Kneecapping cyber vulns server most of us. There are negatives to kneecapping it, but let's not pretend like it's perfectly okay and safe for everybody in the world to have a magic box that can hack anything and cause havoc all over the world. The more powerful, cheap, and accessible this magic box is, the worse the consequences.

This is a hard problem and there's real tension - like you said, the playing field not being leveled is a problem (major companies / entities / govts having exclusivity on the best cyber abilities etc), but everybody having access to it is a problem as well.

So let's not pretend like this is a simple problem, and don't say that it only serves the govt. That's very silly.

> One thing about these founders is that they also have a hard time understanding context and follow-up questions

I feel like you're purposefully being sarcastic.

I like it. If the increase in unrestricted cyber capabilities can be slowed down, please be it. The world needs to get ready, and that takes time. Way more time than even a slow progress would allow.

Unless you want to see more of what happened the past few days.

I think the argument that "cyber capabilities should be democratized, thus keep producing them now, fast, and for everybody" is a very naive one.

Furthermore, "UI design" is not a narrow enough category, I think. Sure, statistically significant differences in performance between models do manifest when benchmarking against "UI design", but there's still just so much variance within the category. Opus 5.5 can have excellent one-shot results, but totally shit the bed when it's placed in an existing codebase and should uphold the UI/UX conventions, design language, and existing component primitives already established in an app.

But that's just the obvious. There are task by task differences (component by component, page by page, context by context) that the model is worse and better at, even though they are all within the general category of UI design.

I honestly don't have the clarity of mind to explain this coherently, but the crux of my point is that there's a huge variation in it's performance in different contexts, often ones that seem near similar, and in result, even Sol can beat Opus 5.5 in some variations of UI design.

And this is my problem in benchmarking and comparing model performance in general. Presently, we try to create broad categories to benchmark against, create a set of tasks, and then average out the results. That works generally, but it's kind of misleading and it's partly what drives people to feel a disconnect between benchmarks numbers and real world usage on their specific tasks.

It's such a messy field that it's kind of maddening.