HoyaSaxa

That’s just likely the NVDA chip ban at play. I wouldn’t bet on that being an enduring truth

I can’t believe they don’t validate a decrypted signature belongs to the user or use a unique encryption key per user/session.

> When Claude Fable 5 is used, Anthropic retains data, including prompts and outputs, to operate safety classifiers that detect harmful use. Other Claude models in GitHub Copilot remain covered by GitHub's existing data retention agreements

On GitHub Copilot for Business, Claude Fable 5 is only available if you are willing to let Anthropic retain your data. That in conjunction with the model being removed from plans in a couple of weeks leads me to believe that Anthropic is between training runs and using this as an opportunity to grab way more training data...

We use Linear at work. I’m definitely in the minority, but I really struggle with the UX. I also wouldn’t call it fast. Sure the page technically loads reasonably quickly, but half the time I see numbers updating on the page with no visual indicator that data loading is still happening.

The title is misleading. They achieved a 94% accuracy rate which in financial services is a far cry from acceptable without a human-in-the-loop verifier.

I think most public companies will take the short term profits and startups will be given a huge opportunity to take market share as a result.

At my company, we are maintaining our hiring plan (I'm the decision maker). We have never been more excited at our permission to win against the incumbents in our market. At the same time, I've never been more concerned about other startups giving us a real run. I think we will see a bit of an arms race for the best talent as a result.

Productivity without clear vision, strategy and user feedback loops is meaningless. But those startups that are able to harness the productivity gains to deliver more complete and polished solutions that solve real problems for their users will be unstoppable.

We've always seen big gains by taking a team of say 8 and splitting it into 2 teams of 4. I think the major difference is that now we will probably split teams of 4 into 2 teams of 2 with clearer remits. I don't want them to necessarily delivery more features. But I do want them to deliver features with far fewer caveats at a higher quality and then iterate more on those.

Humans that consume the software will become the bottlenecks of change!

For most projects, overriding every single transitive dependencies to be pinned is impractical.

Instead, for those using npm, I'd highly suggest using `npm ci` both locally and of course on CI/CD. This will ensure the (transitive) dependencies pinned in the lockfile are used.

TIL on the `npm install --before="$(date -v -1d)"` trick; thanks for that! Using that to update (transitive) dependencies should be really helpful.

For those using GitHub Actions, I'd also recommend taking advantage of the new dependabot cooldown feature to reduce the likelihood of an incident. Also make sure to pin all GitHub Action dependencies to a sha and enforce that at the GitHub repo/account level.

> We don't directly manage AWS Bedrock deployments today, those are managed by AWS.

That was my understanding before this article. But the article is pretty clear that these were "infrastructure bugs" and the one related to AWS Bedrock specifically says it was because "requests were misrouted to servers". If Anthropic doesn't manage the AWS Bedrock deployments, how could it be impacting the load balancer?

Great to hear. I'm not a Claude user and the article did not make it seem that way.

Yes, I don't use Claude so I wasn't aware. I'm glad to hear it sounds like it is conspicuous.

I’m pretty surprised that Anthropic can directly impact the infra for AWS Bedrock as this article suggests. That goes against AWSs commitments. I’m sure the same is true for Google Vertex but I haven’t digged in there from a compliance perspective before.

> Our own privacy practices also created challenges in investigating reports. Our internal privacy and security controls limit how and when engineers can access user interactions with Claude, in particular when those interactions are not reported to us as feedback.

Ok makes sense and glad to hear

> It remains particularly helpful for users to continue to send us their feedback directly. You can use the /bug command in Claude Code

Ok makes sense and I’d expect that a human can then see the context in that case although I hope it is still very explicit to the end user (I’m not a Claude Code user so I cannot comment)

> or you can use the "thumbs down" button in the Claude apps to do so

This is pretty concerning. I can’t imagine the average person equates hitting this button with forfeiting their privacy.