stephantul

5 ms·

31.
by stephantul 3mo ago
It is hilarious to see most comments are people peddling their own products more or less directly.
32.
by stephantul 3mo ago
They sell their products using the credentials they gained. I’d never heard of socket until they found and reported shai hulud hiding in pytorch lightning. It pays off.
33.
by stephantul 3mo ago
I think this is such an nefariously unnecessary negative argument. Most, if not all, of the shai-hulud attacks that hit npm and other ecosystems were preventable with cooldowns. And these were not detected because regular users reported the
34.
by stephantul 3mo ago
Nice! That sounds a lot more like a mission statement than your actual readme.
35.
by stephantul 3mo ago
Not the software, the whole thing. As an author: show me why you thought this was interesting and why you’re doing it, and why you think it’s relevant. What does it build towards? What does climbing this leaderboard mean to me? Absent those
36.
by stephantul 3mo ago
Sadly 100% generated. I think the idea is interesting though, although I wonder if training time for LoRA is such a bottleneck to deserve its own, extremely narrowly scoped, leaderboard. Maybe if it was more tasks or more models we could ho
37.
by stephantul 3mo ago
I don’t think this is the right take-away though. Your fully generated project description makes people lose faith in the actual project. If you went through the trouble of writing the whole code yourself, why generate the comment presentin
38.
by stephantul 3mo ago
Even the title is a Claudeism, it makes me sad
39.
by stephantul 3mo ago
The file drawer effect, except this one maybe should have stayed filed.
40.
by stephantul 3mo ago
I think he is a good example of someone who writes mainly to show he is ready for the next rung of the corporate ladder. That is, his posts are not meant to be useful, but to show higher-ups he is useful to them.
41.
by stephantul 3mo ago
As mentioned by a sibling comment: this is an insensitive take. It takes a lot of courage to write down one’s struggles for all the world to see. Your analysis denies the OP their self-reflection, and instead reduces it to a thing you happe
42.
by stephantul 3mo ago
I am interested in why you chose to do this, and publish it with the headline you used. Was it to learn something? Or to get publicity for another project? Tbh, this sounds like fear mongering to me. Of course the statement “99.9% of server
43.
by stephantul 3mo ago
Why do all this work and then let an ai write the blog post.
44.
by stephantul 3mo ago
Ok, thanks!
45.
by stephantul 3mo ago
It’s personal ad, basically. The author is trying to get a job as an evaluator somewhere and is hoping that putting 1000$ on the line will get them enough publicity to land them an interview/get a job somewhere.
46.
by stephantul 3mo ago
Is it even legal to publish excerpts of books like this? Or does this fall under some kind of exemption/fair use clause?
47.
by stephantul 3mo ago
Thanks for introducing me to the article! I’ve experienced this myself but didn’t know it had a name.
48.
by stephantul 4mo ago
A non-autoregressive transformer trained with a classification objective.
49.
by stephantul 4mo ago
The second part of this comment is not what I expected. I also don’t think it is true. I got bit by a CORS error at work recently that passed by Claude, copilot, and another senior engineer.
50.
by stephantul 4mo ago
We’ve been on the receiving end of this complaint with Semble. I think it is a valid complaint, but constructing a benchmark for this kind of thing is just very difficult and expensive because of the (harness) x (model) x (mcp/cli) com
51.
by stephantul 4mo ago
Ha thanks, it was pink a while ago
52.
by stephantul 4mo ago
Extreme programming in a nutshell. I like doing this to features: build it, then take it down and rebuild but better.
53.
by stephantul 4mo ago
Puppy slush automatically pushed through vents into your codebase
54.
by stephantul 4mo ago
Thanks! This is very similar indeed. Related: I see a lot of “drive-by” PRs by agents, who obviously have no intent of ever maintaining the code they wrote.
55.
by stephantul 4mo ago
I’m not sure I share your view of PRs. I still see submitting PRs as something that puts pressure on maintainers. Even incorrect PRs take time to verify and review. I also don’t see how this differs between the “gap” and the “fence” part of
56.
From Chesterton's fence to Chesterton's gap(stephantul.github.io)
86 points by stephantul 4mo ago|56 comments
57.
by stephantul 4mo ago
It’s an interesting question: I’d say this is more of a vulnerability creator than the actual vulnerability. Similar to how using very difficult technologies makes you more likely to create code with vulnerabilities: the technologies are no
58.
by stephantul 4mo ago
This paper oversells on the title. Like, what is chronos, which embedding model was used, which reranker, how was the reranking done, why is chronos much better than claude code
59.
by stephantul 4mo ago
Sure, the whole premise is exactly that proof of work reduces the value of scraping, while having negligible impact on users. If the data is so valuable that bot operators are willing to pay 10s of cpu, then other measures are necessary. Ne
60.
by stephantul 4mo ago
Because it destroys the economics of scraping. It’s too expensive with proof of work, or at least not as economically viable

More ›