KerryJones

I am also reading the Count of Monte Cristo -- I suggest reading up on its origin, it's fairly interesting.

I think about this all the time. The first several years of Laravel had just absolutely beautiful code to see (both from an engineering, OCD and aesthetic perspective)

I'd like more common words?

"Baith" is incredibly esoteric.

This feels more nuanced than you are giving it credit for? Much of the training data that was available has been withdrawn, atleast for OpenAI we know that much of the training data was garnered in less-than above the board methods

Curious on your "Top" algorithm? I see many 1-voted items there.

Also, how do you vet your blogs?

"GPT 5.5 has already been shown to be as adept as Mythos at finding vulnerabilities."

Do you have any data on this (other than benchmarks)?

Most people would argue that Stadia would have many. Many people loved Google Reader. There are numerous examples of things that were great and were killed, because they hadn't monetized enough or "fast enough", and when you are chasing results on a quarterly basis, you can't always get things that will generate tremendous value with more time.

I think this is misleading as a few other folks say -- otherwise you'd expect Visa/Mastercard stock to drop dramatically at losing that many folks in a single announcement.

It seems like a good path forward is to somewhat try to replicate the idea of "once you can do it yourself, feel free to use it going forward" (knowing how various calculator operations work before you let it do it for you).

I'm curious if we instead gave students an AI tool, but one that would intentionally throw in wrong things that the student had to catch. Instead of the student using LLMs, they would have one paid for by the school.

This is more brainstorming then a well thought-out idea, but I generally think "opposing AI" is doomed to fail. If we follow a montessori approach, kids are naturally inclined to want to learn thing, if students are trying to lie/cheat, we've already failed them by turning off their natural curiosity for something else.

This is not necessarily true. Hypothetical, if most breakthroughs are coming from PHDs and they aren't making any PHDs, then that pool is not necessarily larger.

I recently interviewed for Anthropic, 6 rounds, recruiter was great, said they were putting together an offer letter. I met one of the managers, then another came back from vacation... and then they decided not to give me an offer.

I asked for feedback, and the recruiter sounded frustrated (about the internal process), because they had a moving bar on what was wanted from the hiring managers. I know I hadn't completely aced one of the interviews (they had me do a second one), and apparently they thought it was good enough on initial review, but when coming back to review it again it was not good enough.

It seems like they are going through growing pains as a company.