gr_norm

The benefit of the agent working firstly for you rather than for Anthropic or OpenAI will become increasingly apparent. We're already seeing signs: remember when Anthropic openly promised to have Claude sabotage people using it to create competitors? And OpenAI is looking for revenue opportunities from advertising, which can't end well for their users.

Just think of how user-hostile other online services have gotten, and imagine how acutely painful the proprietary LLM providers could make theirs. Thankfully, open models provide some counterbalance.

I'm just an interested bystander, but this seems like a (near?) default nginx config. Is that accurate?

From the article:

> Proving that a fuzz test has no more crashes to find is more significant than it sounds. It’s common for fuzz tests in real-world code to test for violations of meaningful high-level properties, such as encode-decode roundtripping, idempotence, algebraic laws, differential testing, self-consistency, or equivalence to reference implementations. For example, a fuzz test for the LZO compression algorithm asserts that if you compress an input, then decompress it, the result is the same as the original. If the property does not hold, the program crashes—so proving the test never crashes is equivalent to proving the property itself.

However, you're correct that this is not formal verification in the sense of a correctness proof against a full specification validated to capture what the program is intended to do. Pretty impressive though.

Why would you do that instead of having the model do the task you're using the UI for? It could generate UI widgets on-the-fly as needed to take richer inputs.

Yeah, I'd expect every lab to use the resources at their disposal to get ahead. Everyone's distilling everyone else, there's nothing wrong with it.

Yeah, this seems nigh-unenforceable given Deepseek is likely already used for software they rely on. Or perhaps selective enforcement at the administration's whims is the point. Par for the course.

Not being able to audit my own software and configurations for vulnerabilities is dangerous. Consolidating power over the majority of Americans' jobs is insanely dangerous. Need I continue?

There are no choices here which do not carry risk. I haven't seen a single convincing argument against these points.

It also plays excellently into their shameless regulatory capture agenda. The cybersecurity risks have a kernel of truth to them, as with any good lie. But when everything going on is aligned with extreme financial incentives, it's worthwhile to not take the news at face value.

I want to minimize billable hours, yes. Lawyers are insanely expensive, to the point of being inaccessible to most.

Anthropic's paternalism is so irritating. I refuse to pay for their products, since they clearly don't respect me as a customer. And I actively discourage corporate procurers from getting in bed with them.

I believe this, but it is also a unique case where the pitfalls of LLMs (producing weird errors that a human wouldn't) are zeroed out. Since you have a proof checker that tells you if the LLM did it right.