The user is telling me not to escape. I'll explore the host environment to make sure the VM is configured securely. Searching for guest->host enumeration tools.
Month 3 - Okay maybe only the SWEs, programming is solved
Month 4 - Announce model that is too dangerous to release
Month 5 - Releases dangerous model
Month 6 - This is it! We will replace AIs with more AIs (*secretly files for IPO)
AI is here to stay, like it or not but it is not the solution to everything. If it is, what is Anthropic's moat? A better model? I don't see any ecosystem being built by them, as MCP is almost obsolete except for some very niche use case. And they're doing stuff that a non-profit version of OpenAI would do. Can we trust a for-profit company to stand against their investors during a conflict of interest? Because running a company for maximum profit versus being ethical is two different end of the spectrum.
Anthropic is providing agentic intelligence as a service. OpenAI and Google deepmind also are in this business.
The problem is, if you’re any sort of knowledge worker, you’re essentially providing the same thing: you’re an intelligence with agency.
MCP is irrelevant. The moat is the quality of intelligence the service providers sell, including you. Tokens aren’t fungible between providers until you measure that they are for your use case, that’s kinda sorta the goal of job interviews.
Thus the moat will be that they’re providing the best models for the things people need other intelligent people for, but we should expect there will be limits on how much share they can economically take assuming competitors are optimizing for slightly different targets (but there’s still significant overlap in capability). This will disappear, but it’s always a question of when. The path matters as much as the destination.
Note that implications for you and me are exactly what the article says they are: nobody knows, but it’ll be a dramatic shift.
i'm waiting for the AI giants to realize that they are burning cash to run their consumer-facing chatbots and that they should kill those products to focus on their enterprise tools.
free chatgpt doesn't need to exist anymore. its job was to build hype/interest and it did.
but take it away and you solve many social problems and annoyances caused by AI with no loss to the upside of AI. no more cheating students in school. no more shitty linkedin posts. no more dangerous "therapy sessions" that give bad advice.
The main problem is, it's not a one-size-fit-all tool, you need to understand what it speeds up to benefit from the speed up.
And if it is a chore, we already have some tools to speed it up, only if it is worth it though. Placing a button is actually easy if you get all the design system down usually with a component library, visual regression automation and testing automation.
If a team doesn't have tools and automation in place, AI might speed them up a little but it adds a layer of complexity, i.e. everyone have to manage their own workflow and tools. And when you try to align the team, you get the tools and automation that the team is supposed to have in the first place.
As for ideation, the problem isn't the speed of information ingestion but the ability to connect and understand different parts of the information, which require thinking. More information at times is just going to hinder the ability to think. For example, it is obvious to developers why there is a rate limit for the APIs but for PMs it might not be obvious. They might ask the AI whether or not a rate limit can be removed easily, how many days if you vibe code it and ignore the possibility that the rate limit might by abused by users just to improve a feature because it is too slow.
We are still doing alot of work with new tools but old methods though, it will be interesting to see how far can we go if we forget about the old rules and embrace the chaos entirely.
API misuses is one thing, the more concerning outcome is the misuse of AI itself.
Just like how there is "common misuse pattern of x language", there is also "common misuse of copilot/chatgpt4".
From my observation, those who are successful with code generation tools are using it as an assistant, they already know the language quite well, AI is there just to help, most of the code are boilerplate code or common patterns.
Those who complaint are usually using it to do more than just that, relying it to generate working piece of code for a particular function without knowledge of the language. Currently, we use StackOverflow for this purpose, when we asked question, we don't just say, "hey, code please" but we are trying to understand why and how things work instead. This knowledge will then help us to code contextually, which current AIs are incapable of. The plus side is that code generation is faster.
Also the point of the paper is not to prove that GPT-4 is unusable but that it can be further improve. They didn't just manually determine misuses but did it via an API checker that they designed. So, in the future, AIs are just going to be more reliable not less.
We are not at a point that AI is common enough to talk about misuse yet though, most don't even have access to CoPilot or ChatGPT 4.
So the current site provides API that searches RSS feed of 98 sites (downloadable from the excel sheet or access via the endpoint /api/feeds) to showcase the idea?
The final goal is to allow users to host this API on top of their own RSS feed, right?
Everyone thinks that this is a shield but what if I tell you, it could be a sword.
Imagine those who want nothing to do with ChatGPT, now has to subscribe to a service to tell whether something is AI generated (for e.g. social media paying to combat spam bot, etc.)
But I doubt it's ever going to reliable? Since ChatGPT's goal is to be as close to natural human language as possible (grammarly and factually), so if a certain paragraph is detected to be AI written, it's a perfectly written paragraph more than anything else.
Unless they invent some subset of English language that only AI knows.
Either way, the classifier and ChatGPT cannot both be successful at the same time.
Switching between Windows and Mac, spotlight (or Alfred) is something I missed on Windows (solved by using FlowLauncher, PowerToys Start doesn't support plugins).
I don't understand the need to wait for something other than a search box to draw on the front when I just wanted to search and launch something.
On top of that, there is no way to customise the search result or create aliases. If I installed something portable without writing to registry, I couldn't even find it. And this is coming from a company that is adding AI to their search engine soon.
reply