cmiles74

I'm on my phone, "If that’s hostile works.." should be "If that’s how it works..."

Cursor should not be shipping extensions that are branded Anthropic if Anthropic didn’t create that extension. If that’s really what happened then that needs to change, ASAP. Now that it has happened, IMHO, it is partly an Anthropic problem: the malware has their branding and their name on it, I don’t think they can just brush that off.

Does Cursor have some process that just scrapes Microsoft’s extension catalog and lists them in their own? If that’s hostile works then it’s broken and needs to be fixed.

Bad prompting plus a weak review process?

I wasn't wow-ed by this piece either. There does seem to be something there, though: this thing where someone commits some serious fraud yet gives Trump a slice and then they're pardoned, along with the precipitous drop in prosecuting just these kinds of cases.

I suspect this is more marketing than fact. I don't think there's any real evidence that this is the case, just hints dropped by OpenAI and Anthropic.

I believe there are software developers out there that might take a stronger position against AI but they literally fear for their employment.

I think this is a stretch, many engineering feats are also been considered works of art. Bridges, homes, office buildings, etc. There is no reason not to consider software code, or the software itself, to be works of art.

Indeed, we have seen many instances of software that are well regarded as being works of art. Is the source code for that software somehow not art?

I'm sure that is true. On the other hand, the majority of their customers are likely using these tools for work and larger organizations are paying for the licenses. People in school for the fields that use these tools are probably being trained on Adobe products, with some discount for the school and the students. I don't think these vibe-coded apps are going to get much traction, there's a whole entrenched ecosystem around Adobe products.

My distaste for vibe coded apps aside, I wish them the best of luck.

Reading it over, it does seem like giving the app full disk access would be enough for it to read our messages. I mean, they are stored on disk somewhere.

I gotta' disagree on this one. Meta made claims that it was taking privacy seriously and it turns out, not so much. I do think they should be getting some pressure on that score.

Maybe OpenAI is serious about securing the environment they run their models in, but then again maybe not. I don’t think we can tell from here.

IMHO, I haven’t been super impressed with the security measures I’ve had to work with. Often they are simplistic and bolted on at the very end. If it comes to light that this is the attitude OpenAI has been taking, I would not be surprised.

An LLM, in my opinion, is not comparable to a person.

On the risk management angle, for sure it’s a spectrum. I don’t agree that the far end of the safe side of that spectrum for AI models is “entirely safe and entirely useless”, there is a lot of work you can do with a model that has zero risk of hurting anyone (aside from your wallet). If someone chooses a more dangerous spot on that spectrum, I believe they should be held responsible.

> An AI given the same exact instructions and tools can go and complete a task you wanted it to. Or it can get sidetracked into breaking out of your sandbox and hacking Pentagon. No way to know in advance.

This has not been my experience. I’ve been getting a lot of good work done and, as of today, have been involved in zero Pentagon hacking incidents. ;-)