kvdveer

Ideally: no.

All new shiny new features shouldn't have waited for the (N+1).0 version, they should already have been part of the (N).(M) version.

In practice, the removing the deprecated cruft will remove blockers for some new features, but that should be rare.

In a true competitive Turing test, these reasoning pitfalls could be included in the system prompt, there are not that many of them. The tester would need to find a novel reasoning pitfall, but those aren't uncommon among humans either, so that would not make a very useful differentiator.

Another approach could be to probe the helpfulness of an AI. A human would likely not comply with a request to write a sonnet about tangerines.

It feels different if someone has recently been discriminated against. Jokes land differently when they are too similar to reality.

That said, making edgy joking is definitely acceptable, you'll just alienate part of your audience. That's why the hollow corporate bs doesn't do it.

Or atheists for that matter.

I was a bit put off by the implied hostility there, even if it was in jest. It's a risky choice to jokingly discriminate based on religion, ethnicity or political affiliation, mostly because such a joke is hard to distinguish from almost identical contexts where it isn't a joke.

The added value of the LLM here is probably zero. Just type a search propmt in a search engine. If the top 5 results don't cover the same ground your article is covering, at the very least, your article will expose new knowledge to people using that search term.

Typing up LLM instructions and reading the output is probably more work.

What would be the incentive for site owners to reduce the appeal of their site? The user has connected to the site, so there's obviously no immediate problem.

In the video you can see that the LED lights the logo less evenly than the EL lighting. While that's not important at all, this might be the reason behind this odd choice

A disposable sandbox wont protect you from secret exfiltration. Assuming you don't consider your code a secret, you could of course set up your sandbox so it doesn't have any secrets, but that would severely limit the kinds of tasks you can use the agent for.

If flying ever becomes efficient energy-wise, this may happen. However, right now, flying is very energy inefficient, so anything that doesn't need to be flown, is transported overland to save costs. A change of fuel won't change it, unless the underlying energy usage changes fundamentally.

Better batteries do not impact energy usage, only the means of energy delivery.

The data centre runs on a dedicated power line. My laptop runs on battery. Using coding agents currently drains battery quite fast, which is surprising, given that the vast majority of the work does not take place on my laptop.

Making the client side coding agent more efficient isn't about saving the climate. It is about extending the workday (which might actually make the climate worse)

I feel that grouping related change in commits can be challenging, as git really presents commits as grouping in time, not topic.

It is certainly possible to do topic-grouping in commits, but it requires significant effort to het that consistent on a team level.

While i agree, the current JS security model rally doesn't allow for distinguishing origin for JS code. Should that ever change, advertisers will just require that you compile their library into the first party js code, negating any benefit from such a security model.

Their own (presumably cherry picked) benchmarks put their models near the 'middle of the market' models (llama3 3b, qwen3 1.7b), not competing with claude, chatgtp, or gemini. These are not models you'd want to directly interact with. but these models can be very useful for things like classification or simple summarization or translation tasks.

These models quite impressive for their size: even an older raspberry pi would be able to handle these.

There's still a lots of use for this kind of model

> If you're a security expert and want to help, email me ...

And

> Dropped you a mail from [email]

I don't think there is any indication of a compromise, they are just offering help.

Maybe the news has distorted a bit after crossing the Atlantic, but waren't there substantial outrages after the bits that couldn't be touched had in fact been touched?