tappio

There are a lot of ways they can make the service worse without doing anything illegal. I would not be not worried about my secrets, I would be worried about all other things they can do when they sit at my browser.

The top comment in the post has a blog post which already shows that they are hiking prices without proper notifications, etc. To me it seems that Bitwarden is in a state where the software is pretty much complete, and majority of further development will go into capturing more value.

While "enshittification" might not happen here, its a typical pattern and there are many early signs here. When you selfhost things that just work, you need to worry far less about it.

Like, there are just so many things they can do. Their plugin already knows where you visit, they can sell your visitor data if they want. They can just increase prices. They can start making stupid limitations that force you to upgrade. They can remove possibility to export your data, claiming its a security feature, making leaving as hard as possible. They can start spamming you with all new obscure features and some NPS surveys and what not. Nothing bad, but increases cognitive load.

If you don't mind the risk, good for you. It is great that everyone can choose for themselves.

It works just fine when they do it as long as they want, that is not the point. For me self hosting is a mostly a question of independence and digital sovereignty. We've seen all kinds of service providers turn into garbage over time, so I'd rather not rely on a company that needs to extract as much money from me as possible.

I don't see much reason not to self-host a properly built password manager like Vaultwarden or something similar? The clients keep a local encrypted copy of the vault, so the server only needs to be up for syncing. If it went down for a week, you probably wouldn't even notice unless you were saving new logins. And even if the server got hacked, everything on it is encrypted. Why do you think it should not be selfhosted?

Yes, you need a way for the model to interact with other systems, and a way to preserve memory over context windows. And then you keep poking it ("agent loop"). Poking itself does nothing without the other ingredients.

And yes, you need something to start from, but if you ask it to "do something" and loop it to endlessly ("poking"), you will get some interesting outcomes. So yes you need some initial prompt or task, but that can be "do something" and if you keep asking it everytime it finishes to "do something more". I suspect it will not start saying "no" but rather... it will find some stupid meaning and then drift towards what ever goal it guesses you mean.

I'm unsure whether we agree or disagree on the topic.

If you have endless compute and you keep poking this toy, I'm not at all surprised you get all kinds of outcomes. Even without anykind of instructions I would guess that the models will align towards some goal and do stupid shit.

However, I really doubt its cost effective to do anything like that with these models.

I feel that for some time now, the biggest constraint when working with models is not their intelligence, but their speed. It does not matter how smart the model is, it will make mistakes, because the instructions are ambiguous and new facts are found during implementation. The biggest problem I've had working with software developers has always been the lag between seeing the results and steering towards the right direction, not the skills of the developer (with many exceptions of course).

Regardless, working on the wrong things is time wasted. And again, I'm procrastinating here while waiting for Fable to run a benchmark on a few solutions to a problem I have. We can guess what would work, but we only know after the benchmark. A faster model, with fewer capabilities, would've been a much better choice this time... well, "git gud" they said... and live and learn! Faster model = less time for procrastination.

PS. AI models don't live and learn; the discussion about AGI is pretty pointless imo. It's a tool. Does it matter if it is AGI or not if it does what you want it to do? Does the IQ of your colleague matter if he's good at what he's supposed to do? Or bad? Well... I guess it does matter, as many people are up in arms about whether Astro is AGI or not. Personally, I think we're past the point for that debate. These are amazing tools.

Good argument going here but here is what internet tells me about 'facts':

Its about the same amount of population who have access to clean water and who have access to internet, and that's maybe about 75% of global population for both. Don't know how they overlap, but probably there is people who have no access to internet but have access to clean water and the other way around.

In absolute terms that is still billions of people. Billions.

That can be implemented. Within a session you don't need to know it's the same person tomorrow, so a per-day key derived server-side is enough to measure that someone took 40 seconds from x to y. No cookie, no localStorage, nothing stored on the device, nothing to consent to. Hash ip + user agent + your domain with a secret salt that rotates and is destroyed every 24 hours, and you are on the safe side. Of course, recognizing users across days requires consent. But is that really necessary?

There are privacy respecting ad brokers that dont require user tracking. Its just that people are too lazy or greedy to use those.

There are many analytics solutions that dont require cookies. You can do aggregated analytics just fine without. Saving preferences does not require consent either.

A lot of people criticizing because it's heavily written with LLM, but I mean, if someone produced this piece pre-LLM, would they criticize it? is the critique due to use of LLM or due to the content being truly hard to follow? I read it and I would say, there are some problems with the writing, but its not a bad piece.

Of course this is a bigger problem, as its now harder to distinguish content that is "AI slop" with "content co-authored with AI that is carefully reviewed" with a quick glimpse, and the "AI smell" is quite off-putting. My initial reaction was also negative, but after glimpsing it through and reading the summaries, I found it decent summary, which also... speaks of this thread, of the content of the blog post and everything about the discussion and the strong feelings people have developed around the use of LLMs.

Anyhow, it would be good to disclose the repo with the code for the statistics & use of LLM in the writing right up front. Which model, and why it was used to do the writing, etc. Its enough to say "I think it writes better than I do" or "I was in a hurry, sorry" or what ever, but it really should be disclosed. It reads more honest.

ps. really... that sideways scroll? plz fix it.

Maximizing profit for the corporation is the goal of any corporation by law, isn't it? Apparently not in the US, but for example the Finnish law explicitly states that the goal of a corporation is to generate profits for the shareholders. If you for example give away company assets for free, it can be considered breaking the law.

This probably is just culturally different understanding of the phrase, because US corporations indeed feel to act greedy, and there is no similar level of protection of the employees.

However, the thing is, in the long term, the business has to make profits to be sustainable. If the company does not make profits, it will die. Its the short term thinking that breaks down companies. You can maximize profits and be ethical at the same time, if the goal is to do it in the long term.

I do understand that the "maximizing profit for the corporation" is a synonym often for short term thinking and vulture capitalism, but for me it meant something else. This is actually quite fascinating now that I think of it, because this phrase means completely different things in different cultural contexts.

So I guess the trigger is that "maximize short term profits over long term sustainability" is the kind of company where I'd never work for.

I have used past week opencode go with deepseek v4 pro and claude code with opus 4.7 side by side and... they are both good. They are different, both have their good and bad sides... but they do get things done. Especially the OpenCode has been very enjoyable experience. Thank you Anthropic for all the down time, I would have probably not explored alternatives otherwise. I can vouch for the OpenCode Go sub!

For some personal projects in the past I have used google sheets and cloudflare workers, I guess it could be called CMS, but it was quite restricted of course.

This project has a "shared" backend for the content management and its completely self built. Because there are many clients who use it to edit things its feasible to pay for the hosting.

For a solo project, id be quite interested if someone would build a native editor that can be just hooked with git, so it would make it possible to run the site serverless. Maybe one already exists. "IDE" for static websites.

NASA, White House, and which ever large organizations do not represent the most of the web.

When you have complexity, multiple non techincal users who need to update content, and frequent changes, a CMS is currently a very good solution. But thats just a small fraction of websites.

Most of websites are small, 1-2 person companies websites, non-profts, etc., that are basically business cards. Contact details, possibly a contact form, and few pictures. Thats it. There are likely at least hundred milloin websites like that, which are infrequently updated.

Majority of those sites are powered by WP and various site builders, which is far more complicated than what they need. There has not been good option for non-techincal users that makes it possible to make good looking and functional sites.

Also, please keep it civil. This is not Facebook. People can have different opinions.