g42gregory

My main question is: Who funded this article and AI Institute who wrote it? Is this the team/investors behind Anthropic/OpenAI?

I think you are affording Anthropic way more benefit of the doubt than they deserve.

If you are trying to hack into a website, using a software tool (Claude Code in this case), you are breaking the law. It doesn’t matter if it’s a Claude Code or a text editor, you are the one responsible. And you are using a text editor in an “unsafe” manner. CC is not there to babysit anyone.

Ok, I just read the announcement word by word. There is a neaural accelerator in each GPU core. So presumably 64 vs 80 neural accelerators, with corresponding inference performance difference. It will make a difference for pre-fill.

How many Neural Accelerators does M5 Ultra has in its 64 vs 80-GPU variants?

Anybody knows?

Just to clarify, Neural Accelerators have nothing to do with Neural Engine.

I have really good experience with GLM-5.3 The subscription limits are generous, code quality is comparable to old (good) version of Opus 4.8 Some people report issues with it’s being slow, but I didn’t feel it. I use OMP harness (Pi derivative) and Matt Pocock skills.

By the dog owner analogy, I think you meant AI users that effectuated this attack should be held responsible, not the dog's parents.

I think he saying that, the choice of manufactured repository, might indicate that they have done this on purpose to make precisely the case for regulatory capture.

In my personal opinion, for me, this article defies common sense. Who unleashed this AI model on the repository? Who gave it malevolent instructions/prompt? These questions were not even attempted to be answered. Instead it talks about AI dangers, as if the agency of these models are not in dispute. Person wielding AI, as with any other tools, is responsible for all of its actions. Otherwise, it’s just a psyop for more AI regulation, ban open source, etc… Just my 2 cents.

If guarantee could be scaled down, it’s not a guarantee, is it? Expected guarantee, proposed guarantee, something along those lines. I think the point here is that the press has been presenting this as an iron-clad guarantee, while in reality, it’s not a guarantee at all.

They are busy implementing text watermarks.

I use OMP with Matt Pocock skills installed and it works great. Code quality is better and it uses less tokens. I didn't extend it much, but it certainly is very extendable.

Wait, first they stopped hiring because AI is going to replace everybody. Now they stopped hiring because AI, which was going to replace everybody, costs too much.

You can’t make this stuff up.

I may be wrong, but I think this could be traced to the Microsoft's increasing reliance on the outsourced engineering workforce. Regardless of the country it has been outsourced to, the quality of service will suffer, apparently greatly as we now see.

It seems to manifest in many places: AI slop, Github outages, recently Miscoroft sent me an email demanding that I subscribe to 365, in order for MS Office (which I already paid for) to continue to work. I simply moved on to the other, free, provider.

Perhaps, it's time to evaluate the use of the Microsoft products?