HN user
I'm not sure I understand how important "role perception" is when following instructions from a tool call rather than the user is currently a legitimate use-case (applying steps from documentation, or shell command instructions on stdout, or really anything that can be deduced from the content of a tool call).
Very easy for French speakers ahah
Maybe shadow hierarchy are still more productive than official ones? Looks like something that wouldn't have that many meetings.
Hmm I'm not sure why in an emergency situation accessing a webpage would be easier than making a phone call.
If the thing "outside of reality" ever reveals useful to explain anything about reality, then it becomes part of reality.
I think OP's question is more how could Newton's law "pass" a test any more than General Relativity would, considering that it's merely an edge case of GR?
Why is the article titled "Newton's law of gravity passes its biggest test" if it doesn't explain the movement more than MOND?
You are comparing the fight between a p2p program and the entire music industry with the fight between the entire LLM industry and a newspaper. Notice how the order seems inconsistent.
Ads are for the free tier.
It's a spectrum. Installing Postgres locally is not 100% future-proofing since you'll still need to migrate your local Postgres to a central Postres. Using Sqlite is not 0% future-proofing since it's still using the SQL standard.
If the only argument for a piece of tech in comparison to another one is "future-proofing", that's pretty much acknowledging the other one is simpler to setup and maintain.
He says it mimicks what is described here: https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/unc...
Which is basically phishing:
The meeting link itself directed to a spoofed Zoom meeting that was hosted on the threat actor's infrastructure, zoom[.]uswe05[.]us.
Once in the "meeting," the fake video call facilitated a ruse that gave the impression to the end user that they were experiencing audio issues.
The recovered web page provided two sets of commands to be run for "troubleshooting": one for macOS systems, and one for Windows systems. Embedded within the string of commands was a single command that initiated the infection chain.
Nothing worse than what would have happened to the Astral team if they had ran out of funding rounds without an exit...
This assumes you always learn something new with every new program you write.
I would not have helped. People are losing their mind over agents "security" when it's always the same story: You have a black box whose behavior you cannot predict (prompt injection _or not_). You need to assume worst-case behavior and guardrail around it.
Netscape had 20 millions active users at its peak, out of 6 billions humans.
ChatGPT has 800 millions monthly active users currently, out of 8 billions humans.
This implication completely depends on the elasticity (or lack thereof) of demand for software. When marginal profit from additional output exceeds labor cost savings, firms expand rather than shrink.
One reason you see a pareto distribution in "normal sized" teams is not solely because of competency, but because the 80% can rest on the 20% and therefore don't feel too pressed to work that much. Therefore the pareto model breaks down in 1-man teams.
To be fair, the diction in modern movies is different than the diction in all other examples you mentioned. YouTube and live TV is very articulate, and old movies are theater-like in style.
"Software engineer complains bearing the burden of everything and concludes everything would be fixed by firing everybody except themselves."
Of course. IQ tests measures nothing more than the ability to pass an IQ test, which is proxied by a lot of things such as western culture, education, propensity to cram tests, etc.
Why doing it themselves instead of distributing the work to data owners?
This is not just branding, MCP is an implementation detail; the product is chatting with apps.
What's up with the "prompt refinement" business? Are folks trying to get it right with one shot?
My experience is that treating the generated code as a Merge Request on which you submit comment for correction (and then again for the next round) works fairly well.
Because the AI is bad you get more rounds than in a real code review, but because the AI is fast and in your command each round is way faster than with a code review with a human (< 10 minutes feedback loop).
Isn't that mostly the fine-tuning phase? RLHF being cherry on top?
Would't any additional item increase safety?
Any business model where ads can be paid off has no incentive to make good ads. Ads are meant to be annoying enough so that people prefer paying. Hence the war on ad-blockers.
The advantage of Cursor is the reduced feedback loop where you watch it live and can intervene at any moment to steer it in the right direction. Is Codex such a superior model that it makes sense to take the direction of a mostly background agent, on which you seemingly have a longer feedback loop?
Most servers will natively use caching policies for serving static content as well.
Some SQL engines support accepting parameters separately so that values get bound to the query once the abstract syntax tree is already built, which is way safer than string escapes shenanigans.
Fair enough. It would be nice if Python allowed to customize the formatting options after `:`
This way you could encode such identifier directly in the t-string variable rather than with some "out-of-band" logic.