Eufrat

> Reverse Engineering became much easier, it is plus. Finding vulnerabilities also became much easier, another plus. Models are getting better.

I think the models are good at this because we can just set them loose and they can permute through their training and because a lot of things are common patterns, this can work, but is also generating massive amounts of slop that people are dumping on maintainers who are getting overwhelmed by it. I really want to know how many failed iterations a successful run cost.

One unanswered question is if this is economical. Like, if this is just gobs of money and is unsustainable, what did we just spend the last few years doing? I think these things have value, but not like this.

It’s different sides of the house.

Operators understand how important having them connect to PLCs and various bits because failure can mean you can take out parts of whatever it’s controlling, the power grid, oil pipelines, etc. So, you need to be very aware of what you are doing when you do these upgrades. There’s a lot of process to ensure you don’t break things.

But, you tell them about network security and or having to have Modbus messages wrapped in TLS and some of them will tell you to shut up and get out of their way. These systems have literally been just ported from the equivalent of a PDP/11 to Linux. So, not the most robust things when you come from a network security perspective. They really are 1970s systems and it’s really annoying, but I don’t think there’s any money in really doing anything about it and a lot of people make good money consulting around for these things.

> Legal practice demands an unbroken chain between facts, statutory doctrine, analytical reasoning, and client-ready work product.

I really find legal models kind of insulting and the people who think they are a good idea are being intentionally obtuse. The law isn’t based of base axioms and we literally just make stuff up a lot of the time. Everyday law usually isn’t breaking new ground, but if that’s the target, these models don’t have much value there either.

I think for the big players, it often is, my impression is the more systemic risk is smaller players (like very local utilities) these are sometimes run by very unserious people.

Most SCADA systems date from the 1970s and a lot of them don’t really think about network security or even have a concept of it. So, they don’t think about the consequences of connecting it to the Internet for remote access. It’s just a feature they want.

This slowness also means it sometimes has a hard time understand new risks and a lot of industrial systems are not operated by people who understand those risks and do…very stupid things.

I believe the entire basis of their profitable quarter was getting a discount on compute from Musk.

All these figures are so utterly weaselly. AAR is a made up measure to make them look good. If they cannot show GAAP numbers, they are hiding something. Full stop. While as private companies they are under no legal obligation to show us their books, their PR and intent to go public requires it.

This ship kinda sailed when OpenAI came out of the barn by claiming it could replace people. The narrative of the AI bubble has always been this cynical management driven replace your human capital/labor with stupid bots.

Trying to actually get the framing to be more reasonable is just hard because so many people have oversold it and large swaths of the public are sick of hearing about it.

Every time something comes during the AI bubble we get a wave of me-toos. I think the Jev wave is noticeable for how muted it is.

The fact that this keeps happening demonstrates there is no moat. The fact that each wave gets a little less attention demonstrates there is no killer product here.

I have to stress this is not a real use case. It is a tech demo with no practical application. Doesn’t mean the tech might not have some application later in other places, but this is silly. The Unitree G1 costs $13,500.00 and does what? Clean a house? Show me actual demand and I’ll show you an actual market.

> that’s just the start.

Every single absurd AI claim can only speak about the future. We have invested more than the annual GDP of a Nordic country into this stuff in the last few years and have only forward thinking statements to show for it.

> Physical AI is exploding right now with robots getting tantalizingly close to actually being workers irl.

Citation needed, I have not seen any sign of this. I mean, China having humanoid robots running around is a cool demo and none of that is useful.

I am not suggesting that these don’t have value or won’t be used, but there are perfectly reasonable businesses that could have used these that are just going to get caught as collateral damage because LLMs are going to be a swear word in corporate planning for a while after all this.

There is always blowback during the collapse that is just as irrational as the bubble that caused it.

It’s not a bet, it’s just mania. There’s no rational basis for any of this, the entire thing is artificial. This impending disaster has more aligned with an oddly missing bubble in their diagram…the 2008 housing bubble.

I think we’re at the phase were people are trying to make wash their hands of culpability. That the bubble was not rammed down by a small group of people and was not entirely illogical when examined by more than 5 seconds of care, so that people can point to this in a little bit and go, “Nobody could see this coming!”

The real tragedy is not just the jobs and the economic destruction that we’re going to see, but the fact that this tech actually has some pretty cool use cases and it’s almost certainly going to get burned as when things like this collapse it just takes everything down with it.

No, you don’t understand, this is a shining example of AGI! We recklessly deployed it to show you how powerful it is and how much we can’t be trusted with anything, but you need to let us or China will do it!