colonCapitalDee

Prompt and competent response, as expected from bunny.

"Last week, one of our infrastructure providers reported unauthorized access involving third-party server management software. One of our CDN nodes, located in Armenia, was hosted on a server supplied by this provider.

After receiving the alert from the affected provider, our engineering team took immediate action. Within 20 minutes, we stopped routing traffic through the server. We then reviewed and preserved the relevant security logs for investigation, securely wiped the server, and revoked its access to our other systems. The affected server has been permanently removed from our infrastructure."

E2EE, by definition, means that the server storing the data can't decrypt it. Your server can decrypt the data. Thus, it's not E2EE. Is this a problem? No. You've decided that the server is trusted (a "peer device"), so it's fine if the server can decrypt the data. That's a perfectly reasonable security posture, but it's still not E2EE.

Just use python for all practical programming problems. Lists, sets, and dicts are all you need for most leetcode problems; dynamic typing is convenient; there's good ergonomics for http and other random utility tasks; and pretty much every company is cool with python in an interview. You'll probably only see language trivia questions for languages you claim a specialty in (there's a huge market for C++ specialists, for instance).

I'm starting a new job in a few weeks, and can confirm (for startups at least) experience with coding agents is something companies are looking for. Multiple companies I interviewed with had a AI assisted interview session to go along with a more typical closed book programming session. I was asked about my use of coding agents in behavioral interviews. I'm not an ML guy, just a generalist SWE with 4 YOE. I only got one offer in my search, but it only took ~a month and I feel pretty good about being able to get more offers with more searching. It helps that I'm young, no dependents, and willing to relocate.

Hey, that's what the people want

There is absolutely a middle ground? The healthcare system, like any system, has an incentive structure. Doctors are incentivized to prescribe treatments, because that's how they make money for themselves and their practice. Doctors are not angels sent from heaven, they're people like you and me, and they respond to incentives like you and me. It's also well known that people strongly prefer receiving treatment over not receiving treatment, even when the cost to their health of receiving that treatment outweighs the expected benefit! Given that people push their doctors into prescribing treatments, and doctors are incentivized to go along with it... you would obviously expect some proportion of prescribed treatments to not be medically necessary. 5% sounds about right. And the kicker is that denying these treatments improves health outcomes for the general population, because those medical resources can get routed to the people who actually need them. Every successful public health system has an opposing force built in to it to limit the spurious consumption of scare medical resources, because without such a force costs balloon and the system becomes unsustainable. Not to defend the US healthcare system of course, our cost problem is worse than anywhere else...

That's not surprising, LLMs are bad at pulling hyperspecific facts out of memory. LLMs aren't mapping applications, they're reasoners. Just a poor problem fit

To be clear, this is petty drama *stirred up the US government*. It's not some sort of back and forth, the government is singling them out

We'll see if it happens. Quote: "mediators will facilitate a series of meetings this week. These pre-implementation discussions will lay the foundation for the technical talks and the official signing ceremony." It's concepts of a plan all over again

I don't know, maybe a published press release? A signed document? I'm not saying that Dario's words are meaningless, but it is simply not true that a CEO's public speech constituents a binding agreement.

No, Anthropic clearly did not ask for this.

1. "Dario is known for writing about regulation and the direction of AI as an industry and Anthropic in particular, and what he says is taken very seriously and is considered a definitive statement of the company’s position." This is patently ridiculous. A CEO's blog post is not an official company statement or any sort of binding agreement.

2. "Are there protective measures against political favoritism or arbitrary decisions? I believe there are: they are called “courts”." This is so stupid. Of course Anthropic will take this to court (if it's not rescinded before then), and the government's ham-fisted "regulation" will almost certainly be overturned. And it doesn't matter! An unjust action that is overturned by the legal system does not magically become just.

3. "Is This Politically Motivated or Arbitrary? Probably at least somewhat." If the best you can muster here is "probably at least somewhat", then your head is in the sand. It clearly politically motivated, and clearly arbitrary. Perhaps a different government would receive the benefit of the doubt here, but not this one.

4. "“The government” or “society” is meant to deal with all of those things. Well, now the government is — the actual government that really exists, and not an imagined one that only does good things and never does bad things." So that's it? We just throw up our hands and say that this is natural, that it couldn't go any other way? That Anthropic was "asking for it", and it's their fault when the government lashes out?

If the government wants to regulate AI, either Congress needs to pass a law, or the Executive needs to furnish a reasonable explanation for their actions. We do not live in a fascist country. There is separation between the government and private industry. The government does not have the power to arbitrarily regulate private enterprise. I am truly baffled by the inability for people to see this as it is -- a blatant, and foolish, attempt at posturing and political intimidation. It's part of a clear pattern of behavior by this administration, and should be interpreted as such.

Ignoring power politics doesn't make them go away