but I don't think there's a literally single OS I'd be less happy about being on my computer than this.

I'm excited for agents and I've been toying with them, but Microsoft's walled garden of garbage that they'll figure out 18 different ways to rugpull features out of and resell them back to you later is the worst possible idea for something future looking like this.

This sure leaves me wondering where the fuck did all these seniors willing to take junior positions come from, though, huh? They probably just suddenly popped out of the ground like mushrooms, right?

This isn't even a psyop, this is just propaganda. This is just "the incident at the Chernobyl NPP is contained and there's no danger"

Personally I find the exact question placed very interesting simply by the virtue of being the hoi polloi as well as the virtue of some people at work trying to push RHEL as something we should consider moving to.

The answer might imply two very different things to me, even though there's zerob priority implied to either user group in my mind.

If the public repos got got while enterprise didn't, then it indeed lowers appeal of the ecosystem as something I might try for my personal purposes, because it implies the foss users really don't matter.

If the enterprise repos got hit and the public didn't, then I need to actually form an opinion on the idea of deploying it at work.

If it was both then simply lmao. Lol.

If any "damage" is caused to a victim here, it's done entirely by the LLM, not the author of the software.

What's with this insane melodrama? The first version of the "malicious code" would, at the very worst, delete the local code of the library and prevent it's code. You can't claim there's any damage or malice in a software that doesn't like the way you using it preventing you from using it. You could put in the copyleft license that LLM use is forbidden, and while that may not actually legally obligate anyone to avoid it, it easily means anyone going against your explicit instructions is actually misusing your software and doing so at their own peril. Nobody is getting murdered, and nobody was ever at risk of losing anything they were ever entitled to.

There's noting malicious about what is embeds. The text is a suggestion that no reasonable system, artificial or otherwise, is obligated to follow. There's many common, good reasons to write down instructions that could do damage if willfully applied in the wrong context. A text file that just contains nothing but `rm -rf /` isn't malicious. A film where people get shot during a robbery isn't an incitement to preform a robbery. We've established long ago that baby proofing every single surface on the planet isn't a reasonable approach, and it applies to information, tools and documentation too. All OSS comes "as is" and without guarantees of correctness and applicability for a good reason; trying to make everything safe in every context and every scenario is a path to hell. Any AI system that breaks on this is worse than useless.

Any actor incongruent enough to misbehave when presented with an input like that is worthless at best and very likely dangerous to whatever "work" it's expected to do, so, really, this does a service to anyone who's tools break on it by exposing the vulnerability without using it for any actual harm. I use LLM agents regularly and if they get tripped up by that, they might just as well be willing to dump all my auth to whoever's bad actors server when faced with a malicious injection into what could be a compromised project.

Glad that someone keeps the LLMs on their toes, so they are actually forced to become robust and reliable.

Sad that the more talented Lucas to work on SW went first.

I know! It's so random!

I doubt there's an actual head involved, this feels like some shithead just running clawdbot agents to astroturf the comments here and when they're at it, just shitting on their posting enemies.

Will that be the boom or the bust part of the cycle?

The article even mentions that there's other surface irregularities that decrease friction, and the paper mentions other methods that also decrease drag, but the newly observed effect is distinct and different with the ones we've seen so far, and the headline is reductionist and bad.

It's not that surprising that someone found another exception to the the rule of thumb that's been proven wrong with many mechanisms at many scales, including the shark skin, but also just, golf ball dimples, and all kinda wacky methods on aircraft wing like shock bodies and all...

...I'm more impressed they now got air friction tunnels that levitate the object magnetically a meter out, against the air friction, while also being able to actually measure the drag on it at that. That's really, really cool and oughta open up aerodynamics to lot of experiments that'd be very difficult to pull off without compromising accuracy or something else.

If they had to actually specify something beyond it being an "EV", they'd have to find one it's comparable to, and it's hard to compare real world physical vehicles beholden to the reality of things to financial scam vehicles.

I mean, yeah.