breakitmakeit

It would be funnier if ww3 wasn't about to happen with this logic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusation_in_a_mirror

This is an initiative I want to support, but after reading both stories - you're making the mistake of having a good-faith argument with bad faith actors, comparing approaches as if you are chasing the same objective from different principles.

DOGE is not trying to find efficiency. DOGE is trying to funnel money from the people to the powerful. DOGE is actively part of a project to destroy the government. DOGE does not give a damn.

that would benefit the people and not a large US company.

As a fan of both I highly recommend Adrian Tchaikovsky's Children of Time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Time_(novel)) for something deeply imaginative, empathetic, and technically plausible.

Elsewhere perhaps, this seems like a pretty standard/legit security flaw in a new application which is found and hopefully quickly closed.

If your information is sensitive, do not use an LLM by public API - absolutely all of your data is being stored and processed. For all of them.

That is... bonkers. At the risk of feeding a troll, I find it difficult to take the argument that voluntary contributions to public health through charity is more "moral", which in the case of health care I would argue is equivalent to "effective", than a system implemented by an organization with enormous power (the government) which at least theoretically has a direct duty to its stake holders (voters), who in turn have the power to enact change in that system if it's not serving them? (by voting)

They just kind of have to give up their power and hope?

Buddy, one cursory glance at history will show that hoping gets you nowhere.

And thus is shown that legal reasoning is not equivalent to moral reasoning

As the article points out, they are arguing in court against the new york times that publicly available data is fair game.

The questions I am keenly waiting to observe the answer to (because surely Sam's words are lies): how hard is OpenAI willing to double down on their contradictory positions? What mental gymnastics will they use? What power will back them up, how, and how far will that go?

This was also visible in earlier versions of Claude and ChatGPT, when the supervisor kicks in after the answer begins generating. Censoring different content, naturally.

I'm using Cursor's composer agent mode with Sonnet 3.5 (I don't use OpenAI on principle, snakes). It does a great job of finding the relevant code without overloading its context window.

I experimented today with Aider (to get R1 involved) and had less success, but it might be that I don't have the workflow down.

I have found cursor can handle a .NET C# back-end using highly standard code structures very well. SignalR for networking.

I've created servers and very basic HTML visualization for three projects - a fairly simple autobattler (took a day), a web-based beat-em-up (2 days), and now a bit more ambitiously my dream RTS-MMO (3rd weekend running).

I started with concise MVP specifications including requirements for future scaling, and from these worked with the AI to make dot point architectural documents. Once we had those down I moved step-by-step, developing elements and tests simultaneously then having the agent automatically run the tests and debug. The test-driven debugging is the part that saved the most frustration, as the initial implementation was almost always broken, but leaving the agent to its own devices (tabbing in and typing "continue" when hitting Cursor's 25 tool call limit, sometimes for hours) the tests guided bug fixing and amazingly it got there fairly consistently, though occasionally it will go off the rails and start modifying the tests to pass or inventing unwanted functionality.

The code is as standard as possible, with the servers all organized identically API -> Application -> Domain <- Infrastructure, and well separated between client/server. Getting basic HTML representations wasn't an issue, but it does begin to struggle and requires a lot more direction when it comes to client-side code that expands beyond initial visualization. I had a lot more success with Monogame C# than Phaser or other web formats (e.g. I quickly gave up on SFML, same issues you were having).

I'm a professional game developer but without formal CS/programming training, so I'm aware of my requirements but not always how to implement them cleanly. I understand the code it writes which feels vital when it occasionally rolls a critical miss, but these projects would have taken me months without AI.

Kowtowing to the king

I wrote a tested prototype MMO in the last few weekends with AI as my power tools.

You're holding it wrong.