thomascgalvin

Everything I've read indicates that yes, this is the new normal.

When Mythos was first announced, pretty much every security expert I talk to freaked directly out. A significant portion of my job now revolves around mitigating the impact of AI-generated exploits.

The rate at which we're churning out AI-generated code is going to make this worse, too, because AI-generated code is kind of notoriously terrible at security.

IntelliJ was the perfect IDE ... two years ago maybe? Very little that has been added since improved my experience, a bunch of it gets in my way, and I'm sick of being prompted to try the latest and greatest AI integrations.

I don't think that there's a better alternative at the moment, and I get the need to pump out features to keep the revenue stream going, but I miss the slimmer versions

This is a layer on top of normal security, so this isn't a matter of compromising the "brain" instead of RBAC, etc, but in addition to.

Attribute-based access control is already a thing. User X logs in the US East between the hours of 6am and 6pm. If User X logs in from Russia at 3am, deny access. This seems like an evolution of that pattern

Ah yes, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, that famous election security wing of the US Government

> A compiler will "correctly" process input into unintuitive output, but that's not always what the user intended

Importantly, this behavior is deterministic. If the compiler takes your code and spits out something you did not expect, it will always spit out that same result, given the same input. Once you figure out what went wrong, you've solved that problem.

Generative AI is intentionally not deterministic, and that means you're going to solve the same issues -- hallucinations, primarily -- over and over again.

Forced arbitration seems to be legally enforceable, and I don't see why this would be any different, but IANAL

> Our entire small team thumbs up a PR before it's merged unless there's a big rush on it, and this gives everyone on the team a rough idea of the state of the codebase at any given time. There's no being blindsided like "this whole system I depend on is gone" like I had happen at far more siloed places I've worked.

How large is your team? Because I don't think that would scale beyond maybe five engineers

I'm a huge proponent of automated testing, because that catches things like "this whole system I depend on is gone" even if the guy who depends on it isn't in the room

I'm also a huge proponent of shared ownership of ... everything, really. It's natural for people to kind of own different pieces of a codebase, especially if it's a component they created, but that leads to silos and low bus counts. There shouldn't be one guy who owns one system that depends on one other component

> I got some people who mentioned an Acronym (the project they supported "for years") and asked them to define it, and they couldn't.

That could be a valid test, but I do a lot of government contracting, and that industry is absolutely rife with acronyms nobody knows the expansion of, as well as names that were chosen because somebody thought they were cool but aren't acronyms, but everyone else assumes are acronyms, so they get the capslock treatment.

This site certainly makes some interesting usability choices.

When the page loads, the article takes up about 25% of the screen, on the bottom right. It's basically in the exact place I wouldn't look for the content I loaded the page for.

Metadata about the article takes up just as much space at the article itself, a full quarter of the screen, even though it's only a few lines long. Once you start scrolling, there's just a massive empty gulf off to the left.

The menu is ... I didn't realize it was a menu at first.

It's actually much more readable on mobile, which might be a first for me

They love programs that benefit them, and hate programs that benefit the "wrong" people. Also, the definition of "wrong people" is very easy to guess.

You're asking a question that only applies to rational actors.

Corporations exist for one purpose: to get as much money as possible. Side concerns, which can range from "not destroying the environment" or "not destroying the economy," are objectively not their goal, nor do they consider them their responsibility. Those are things "someone else" should worry about.

AI destroying all jobs is similar to a nuclear arms race; these companies don't want to eliminate everyone's ability to buy things, but they don't want to be the only entity without that ability, so ...

People like Altman and Musk are saying that Universal Basic Income will be necessary once AI has fully automated away most jobs, but at the same time they aggressively fight against any kind of tax policy that would allow UBI to function.

I am convinced that their talk of UBI is just handwaving; they're trying to convince us that there will be a solution to the destruction of the economy as we know it, so that we'll just let them do whatever they want.

It isn't the backlash against AI that will get ugly, it will be the backlash against the ten people who suddenly own the entire world's money supply

I like go, but a lot of little things stop me from loving it.

Like, enums. I get a lot out of the box when I use an enum in Java or Kotlin. Converting to/from a String is trivial. Type safety ... exists.

I can do that in Go, but I have to hack it in, for every single enum type I want to represent. Enums are not a thing in the language, which means its easier to keep the language in your brain all at once, but at the expense of making it harder to keep the software I'm writing in my head. Is this "enum" the same as that "enum"? I have to go read the code to figure it out.

But Go is excellent at a lot of things. Compile times, static binaries, resources compiled right into that binary, execution speed ... there is a lot to love.