meowface

7 ms·

91.
by meowface 3mo ago
Yes, I am pretty sure it was simply poorly worded. They almost definitely mean "you will notice even more false positives during seemingly routine coding/debugging tasks than you did at the initial launch". Which is not surpr
92.
by meowface 3mo ago
It is quite possible this was intended as a "fast burn" measure, yeah
93.
by meowface 3mo ago
I have definitely become much worse at writing code, myself, for that exact reason, but I strongly suspect that's orthogonal to this, especially since this is a tiny amount of code. Underhanded code is not really a software engineering
94.
by meowface 3mo ago
There are a few different things here. The actual steganography technique by Claude Code here is fairly smart and subtle; it's appropriate for a binary signal. The less-clever part is the implementation of the underhanded code on the c
95.
by meowface 3mo ago
I'm sure they've had complex server-side detections for a while. But for the client parts: it should only contain the parts that must be on the client, and it could be done in a more benign-looking way. For example, the unavoidabl
96.
by meowface 3mo ago
>It's just the first layer and there are multiple layers underneath this that we don't know about. Oh, of course. I am sure this is the tip of an iceberg of tons of server-side detections and analytics. But, still, the client-s
97.
by meowface 3mo ago
"Value judgment aside" meaning commenting on how this was done without commenting on the actual considerations of whether one should do such a thing
98.
by meowface 3mo ago
I see your point, but in any case the more data / the less detectable, the better. But, yes, regardless of the exact motivation, I do think it's fairly plausible that they knew this would likely get detected fairly quickly no matt
99.
by meowface 3mo ago
I would guess this part - since it's so sensitive, and fairly small - was either written or heavily driven by humans. Though I do also think it's possible their internal Mythos ~5.5 or whatever may also not necessarily be heavily
100.
by meowface 3mo ago
Value judgment aside: I am a bit surprised at how sloppily they did this. I think they could've achieved the same effect while decreasing the odds of detection via reverse engineering. (This field is known as "underhanded code&quo
101.
by meowface 4mo ago
I may be missing something, but I think it's unclear that the parent poster here is necessarily actually contradicting anything the AI said. It may depend on the exact information the OP wrote to Claude and GPT. The full transcripts wo
102.
by meowface 4mo ago
I detest Elon Musk but I still use Twitter because there just is no alternative to it if you want decent tech discussion. And I don't think it's smug or dickish. I like AI and I encourage even inexperienced software developers to
103.
by meowface 4mo ago
This sums up the dynamic: https://x.com/danhockenmaier/status/2021617680525172840
104.
by meowface 4mo ago
I and my friends go back and forth, every day, on whether coding with LLMs is a net plus or a net negative. I'm at the point where I think it's dumb to not do it but also dumb to do it. I have no real answer. I have settled on usi
105.
by meowface 4mo ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/09/opinion/foreign-aid-cuts.... https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/opinion/elon-musk-doge-us... https://www.nytimes.com&#x2
106.
by meowface 4mo ago
If you check my post history, I'm very left-leaning. I'm just establishment-left+woke (i.e., liberal) rather than populist-left+socialist, and Wired is populist-left. I'm the kind of person who actually likes Obama, for examp
107.
by meowface 4mo ago
Wired has been NY Post-tier (of the inverse polarity) for several years, now.
108.
by meowface 4mo ago
It's very disappointing but I'm assuming it's for rational reasons on their part.
109.
by meowface 4mo ago
It is more capable of writing code I find tasteful and maintainable. It is debatable to what extent it itself has taste. Its outputs just suit my taste more than Codex's do, even though Codex introduces fewer bugs.
110.
by meowface 5mo ago
GPT-5.5 is the better programmer but Opus 4.8 remains the better system architect and product designer. Codex is very "miss the forest for the trees", but is much better at successfully making large changes in large codebases. Cla
111.
by meowface 5mo ago
GenAI is good. (LLMs are GenAI, for example.) This particular subset of GenAI is very very bad.
112.
by meowface 5mo ago
Same. I prefer walking outside (as would anyone) but I find even walking within my own home is pretty good, for people who have enough space. I may look like a maniac pacing in circles while watching some philosophical YouTube video on the
113.
by meowface 5mo ago
You'll be dependent on it whether or not you use the main harnesses. You pay for the model. The frontier models will likely always be better than the open source ones.
114.
by meowface 5mo ago
Codex and Claude Code store all this too. Lately I've started having each agent regularly read each other's chat transcripts as well as their own, including even the very same session I'm in. (With big contexts they increasin
115.
by meowface 5mo ago
Agreed. 4.7 is a smarter but weirder model. It will get confused in unexpected ways, but when it's not confused it will perform better than 4.6. It's not a bad idea to skip it and wait until the next model release, but I personall
116.
by meowface 5mo ago
It's just an incremental thing. You're both right. They will slowly become less and less likely to introduce vulns due to higher intelligence and better RL. Offensive capabilities will still probably scale faster than automatic de
117.
by meowface 5mo ago
I've noticed even people who do offensive security for a living frequently leave gaping holes in their own code. If you're not actively primed to scan the landscape for the gorilla, you will often miss it even if you're a gor
118.
by meowface 5mo ago
IMO this is bad, but a formatter that autofixes it would be fine
119.
by meowface 5mo ago
Paul has addressed this quote many times afterwards. But you've already said you don't care about his opinion, so it's not worth showing his explanation. He still likes Sam.
120.
by meowface 5mo ago
Really. That guy. I'm afraid you're one side of the coin in https://paulgraham.com/fh.html . Paul himself would agree with me on that if he were to read your post.

More ›