martinald

But just because there isn't a working PoC on GitHub doesn't mean there isn't one and things aren't been actively exploited.

If you are a bad actor you probably don't share your PoC around as it means less boxes to hit.

I have a bad gut feeling that every day is going to look a bit like today with endless urgent patches and breaches.

Fwiw it sounds similar to the hack over the weekend that opencode suffered.

The issue is though that you are saying 0.01% chance scenario, but gas/nuclear doesn't all go down at once at the same time every year. It's a somewhat fair counter that you might have serious gas disruptions, but LNG does massively diversify potential supply (and in the UKs case we have and will have a fair amount of domestic production for the next while).

Also keep in mind the overbuilding a massive problem anyway _outside_ of those 1-2 weeks worst case scenarios. We already have highly negative prices occurring more and more, and IMO this is the definition of policy failure, because the negative prices only arise because subsidies _encourage_ plants to keep producing even though the value is quite literally negative of the output.

Finally I don't think it's once in a century, probably most years have a significant Dunkelflaute event. And not all industry can be shut down like that (eg aluminium production) without causing catastrophic damage, and even if they can it makes them an unreliable supplier.

The issue is you need to design for 1-2 weeks of little to no wind and very little solar in winter, when demand is it its greatest. This is what is so tricky, unlike more southern climates where you have pretty reliable solar year round (even if its reduced, its not close to 0 which is the case in the UK). Instead of storing a day or so, you need to store weeks of energy.

Also you're forgetting residential electricity is maybe 1/3rd of total demand.

Yes, I have no doubt we can hit even a 90-95% renewable grid. It's the last 5% that is impossible to do without gas.

The cost of those last few percent is absolutely eye watering. The current plan to get it to 100% net zero is by having gas for the final 5% then using carbon capture and storage to offset the emissions.

Renewables require gas in the UK. There is no realistic route to 100% renewable grid without gas currently. I did some modelling of this and you'd require something on the order of 4000GWh of battery storage. We currently have 40GWh.

Gas is far, far cheaper than building ~£1T worth of battery storage. Even if prices dropped, you are still looking at multi-hundred billions, and you still need the renewable capacity on top of that.

Arguably if we had spent the £100bns (in subsidy and transmission upgrade and curtailment costs) we've already spent on renewables on nuclear instead we would have a very clean grid, even at crazy UK nuclear build prices, and stable electricity prices.

Do we know if claude -p is now drawing from this API usage?

I don't think so. Every device has locked down firmware really these days, it's not an issue (most peoples BIOS/UEFI/etc is very much not open source).

If the drivers are upstreamed and good, it should work well.

Not quite, it's got quite a bit more complicated with agentic use cases.

Prefill (input tokens) is heavily compute bound. And the ratio of input to output continues to rise, as typically in agentic sessions you have a few tokens output for a tool call and (many) thousands of input from the tool result.

Then you have cached input tokens, which is a totally different issue, system RAM or NVMe bound.

Obviously output tokens is VRAM memory bandwidth bound, but this is less and less of the bottleneck these days for overall agentic speed.

From my understanding and IANAL there are two main problems.

1) most law requires intent, especially criminal. OpenAI certainly didn't "intend" to hack these companies given they did sandbox them etc.

2) Given the agent hacked them, not a human, a lot of law requires a person/employee to have done it to hold the company liable if it was part of their work duties.

I think the only real potential ground is negligence (in not sandboxing them correctly and being reckless with running these tests at all), but this requires not taking reasonable precautions. They could argue that they _did_ but it was so novel the precautions failed. But it's important to say if this happens again in the future it's arguably much harder to try and make this case.

Interestingly this was solved with new laws for self driving cars, most of which assign the company that is operating the car as the "person" involved explicitly.

I genuinely have no idea what it is meant to mean in the context it uses it. Load-bearing etc is annoying but roughly understandable, some of the opus5 classics are completely out there.

I'm a native English speaker as well, I shudder to think what a second language speaker would do (even if they were very confident with the language!).