fcarraldo
Joined 9 years ago
Joined 9 years ago
My point is they announced they’d ship a calendar in 2019 and it took 2 years to ship a full release and 3 to ship an iOS app.
It also sort of sucks, and in 2024 (year 5) they announced they’re rebuilding it. The rebuild partially shipped in 2026.
For a guy suddenly obsessed with speed these timelines are even more absurd.
Either he's been like this the entire time, trying to crack the whip and failing, and thus a bad leader who has repeatedly failed to get results, or he's (as his employees have said) very deep in AI Psychosis and completely abandoned his principles.
It doesn't matter which it is, they're both extremely damning for the company and his leadership.
Or if this other thing were to be true, then bar.
If it’s something else, then baz.
The US is currently, probably, still a Democracy with a semi-functioning independent Judiciary and public pressure can still have an impact.
can you elaborate?
This sort of casual misogyny is at the root of the problem. Shame on you.
However, the backend demo report seems longer and more complex than just reading the code. I’m trying to build something similar as well, and no one has quite nailed this yet.
The risk map / assisted review needs to be succinct and information dense, to guide your attention. My current philosophy is that we need to be annotating code, not replacing the entire code review interface with a bunch of text.
Every individual running their own instance would be the equivalent of every individual having their own Twitter account, which defeats the purpose.
Perhaps something can change to help prevent poverty and hunger if the economic value produced by society results in such enormous gains by such few people.
Seems a bit silly to raise all of this fuss over an MIT licensed project that is both open source and not actually usable. What do you expect people to do with the source code, admire it?
The guy is liable for damages. If no damages were caused, there's no lawsuit. The government doesn't put people on trial for unauthorized access (unlike, say, murder). Someone needs to file charges.
However, if the guy _were_ sued by his gym for damages, it should be his perogative to ultimately sue Anthropic to cover the damages and the legal fees.
The system is set up this way on purpose. You can't sue another party on someone else's behalf. The gym can't even prove that Claude did it - the guy might be full of shit. They sue the accountable party (the person who accessed the site without authorization) and then the accountable party is free to sue the tool maker for selling a dangerous tool negligently.
edit: damn actually tecoholic said this too and i missed it. well, anyway i agree with that guy.