In fact, AI might be the opposite of managerial "silver bullet". The more we automate what is repetitive, the less predictability remains overall. Things can get more productive on average but the managing it becomes harder, as productivity amplifies risks.
> Many CLI tools, SDKs, and frameworks collect telemetry data by default.
Any of those are using a dark pattern and before exploring new ways to opt out you should look for and spend your energy on an alternative which respects your freedoms upfront.
I am currently enjoying WYSIWYG with GNU TeXmacs for long-form or scientific text editing. Both, the concept and the tool, are amazingly capable and a breath of fresh air after all the LaTex, Markdown, Org s …
Almost nobody uses TeXmacs it because those who might be interested need LaTeX and its packages. This is not LaTeX. (In the future these authors might all be using Typst, but not this thing.)
Gone are the days of deterministic programming, when computers simply carried out the operator’s commands because there was no other option but to close or open the relays exactly as the circuitry dictated. Welcome to the future of AI; the future we’ve been longing for and that will truly propel us forward, because AI knows and can do things better than we do.
I had this funny moment when I realized we went full circle...
"INTERCAL has many other features designed to make it even more aesthetically unpleasing to the programmer: it uses statements such as "READ OUT", "IGNORE", "FORGET", and modifiers such as "PLEASE". This last keyword provides two reasons for the program's rejection by the compiler: if "PLEASE" does not appear often enough, the program is considered insufficiently polite, and the error message says this; if it appears too often, the program could be rejected as excessively polite. Although this feature existed in the original INTERCAL compiler, it was undocumented.[7]"
"PLEASE COME FROM" is one of the eldritch horrors of software development.
(It's a "reverse goto". As in, it hijacks control flow from anywhere else in the program behind your unsuspecting back who stupidly thought that when one line followed another with no visible control flow, naturally the program would proceed from one line to the next, not randomly move to a completely different part of the program... Such naivety)
> "PLEASE COME FROM" is one of the eldritch horrors of software development.
The most enigmatic control flow statements in INTERCAL, however, remain PLEASE GIVE UP and DO ABSTAIN FROM – a most exalted celebration of pure logic and immaculate reason.
I read the entire thing fwiw (pseudo-retired life helps with time here).
It looks like it was a collaborative effort across multiple teams, where each team (research, security, psycology, etc etc etc) were all submitting ~10 pages or so. It doesn't feel like slop.
I'll copy the highlights here, but the tweets have imagery as well:
> The obvious hype - It crushes benchmarks across the board, and it does so with fewer tokens per task.
> Despite this, they don’t think it can self-improve on its own. There are still areas your average engineer does better with, and despite it accelerating tasks by 4x, that only translates to <2x increase in overall progress.
> They’re probably right to hold this back - its ability to exploit things is unprecedented. Any site running on an old stack right now or any traditional industry with outdated software should be terrified if this becomes accessible.
> Counterintuitively, while it’s the most dangerous model, it’s also the safest. They’ve also seen significant additional improvements in safety between their early versions of Mythos and the preview version.
> Anthropic does a really good job of documenting some of the rare dangerous behaviors the early models had.
> Interestingly, Mythos itself leaked a recent internal “code related artifact” on github.
> Mythos is also RUTHLESS in Vending Bench. Agent-as-a-CEO might be viable?
> The last thing: Mythos has emergent humor. One of the first models I’ve seen that’s witty. The examples are puns it came up with and witty slack responses it had when operating as a bot.
Correct[0]. This was also my first thought after reading
> Unfortunately, unlike many other languages, SQLite has no formal specification describing how it should be parsed. It doesn’t expose a stable API for its parser either. In fact, quite uniquely, in its implementation it doesn’t even build a parse tree at all9! The only reasonable approach left in my opinion is to carefully extract the relevant parts of SQLite’s source code and adapt it to build the parser I wanted
Did they made a proper problem research in the first place?
I'm very well aware of parse.y, if you look into the syntaqlite code, you'd find it's a critical part of how the whole "source extraction" mentioned in the article works [1]
To be clear when I say "formal specification", I'm not just talking about the formal grammar rules but also how those interpreted in practice. Something closer to the ECMAScript specification (https://ecma-international.org/publications-and-standards/st...).
I've been using "slopocalypse". People already know AI is responsible, but slop existed before — e.g. conventionally generated SEO spam. It's just... so much worse now.
