staminade

I mean, he's right: individuals hoarding scarce resources is less efficient that everyone holding them in common. The problem is, how to ensure we all get a fair share of them. We can't leave that up to commercial enterprises, because they also have an incentive to hoard and control them for their own profit. Perhaps what we need is some kind of government that holds them in common for the benefit of the entire populace and. But what to call it? Common-ism...?

This was a compromise of the extension. The same kind of supply-chain attack could happen to literally any extension, package or other piece of software you install. Not excusing Anthropic letting this happen, but it doesn't have any bearing on the security and privacy of using Claude Code or Codex. Yes, you need to be careful about what they do. The fact that you might still get pwned via some other vector is irrelevant.

I think VS Code extensions autoupdate by default, unless you disable it.

In retrospect I really think it was a deliberate plan by IBM and Sun to turn software development into such an awful, impenetrable quagmire that they would be the only ones who could build and maintain any system.

What if we're actually running in a slop decomp of the simulation...

This is from March 2026, but it does match what I've encountered professionally. Code review was always a significant bottleneck and is even more so with agentic coding. We've had discussions about leaning more on automated review, but it hasn't translated into any practical improvements so far. I think senior engineers find it very difficult to give up on line-by-line review, no matter how much better the agents have gotten.

I think if there is a major change in code review culture, it's not going to happen first in established engineering teams. It'll happen in startups that adopt a no-human-review policy from jump and then maintain it as they mature. I'm sure that's happening, but it's likely invisible to most studies and surveys at the moment. If it proves successful, and such companies start shipping significantly faster, the rest of the industry will be forced to adopt.

Very funny. Although ironic that this whole library was built with AI.

Unless they roll-back women's rights and improvements in child mortality, societies will need to radically overhaul their entire relationship to supporting parenthood in order to reverse this trend. The economic costs of having children at a replacement rate are simply too high.

We need universal childcare services, provided by the state and available to all, and other childcare-enabling reforms like automatic right to work from home and other flexible working arrangements for those with children.

These won't be popular with everyone, but you'll won't solve the demographic crisis without them.

The author apparently wrote a book arguing that “near death experiences” prove there probably is an afterlife. I’m not sure he’s in any position to be lecturing anyone about delusions.

AI company leaders didn't invent this concern about the potential dangers of AI, either as a cause of economic disruption, or as a potential extinction risk. Superintelligence was published in 2014, and even then it wasn't a new topic. Technologists, philosophers and science fiction authors have been discussing and speculating about AI risk for decades.

Also, the idea that AI leadership seized on and amplified these concerns purely for marketing purposes isn't plausible. If you're attempting to market a new product to a mass audience, talking about how dangerous and potentially world-ending it is is the most insane strategy you could choose. Any advantage in terms of getting people's attention is going to be totally outweighed by the huge negative associations you are creating in the minds of people who you want to use your product, and the likelihood of bringing unwanted scrutiny and regulation to your nascent industry.

(Can you imagine the entire railroad industry saying, "Our new trains are so fast, if they crash everybody on board will die! And all the people in the surrounding area will die! It'll be a catastrophe!" They would not do this. The rational strategy is to underplay the risks and attempt to reassure people. Even more so if you think genuinely believe the risks are being overstated.)

Occam's razor suggests that when the AI industry warned about AI risk they believed what they were saying. They had a new, rapidly advancing technology, and absent practical experience of its dangers they referred to pre-existing discussions on the topic, and concluded it was potentially very risky. And so they talked about them in order to prepare the ground in case they turned out to be true. If you warn about AI causing mass unemployment, and then it actually does so, perhaps you can shift the blame to the governments who didn't pay attention and implement social policies to mitigate the effects.

I don't think the AI industry deserve too much of our sympathy, but there is a definite "damned if you do, damned if you don't aspect" to AI safety. If they underplay it, they will get accused of ignoring the risks, and if they talk about it, they get accused scaremongering if the worst doesn't happen.

My understand was that was in relation to IP licensing. Microsoft got access to anything OpenAI built unless they declared they had developed AGI. This new article apparently unlinks revenue sharing from technology progress, but it's unclear to me if it changes the situation regarding IP if OpenAI (claim to) have achieved AGI.

What do you think chain of thought reasoning is doing exactly?