What disclaimer? The one locked in the bottom of a filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door that reads "Beware of the Zeptosaurus"?

Build what, exactly??

What they promised??

Cure cancer. Solve world hunger. Fix climate change. Etc.

They can't even be profitable, whereas my niece can make money from selling lemonade on a hot Saturday.

AI execs are a waste of space.

Objects in Mirror Appear Smaller Than They Are (*)

(*) Astronomical telescope joke.

Looks like a truck/pickup body on a regular car platform. What they call a "Ute" Down Under.

The market will kill it naturally

Yes there's a mechanism for that. It's called destroying a part of your life. Maybe you lose your job "naturally". Maybe you lose 10-20 years of your wealth growth "naturally". Maybe crime goes up in your neighborhood "naturally".

No. There's nothing "natural" about market repricing mechanisms, they are destructive, and many people get hurt. In the case of the AI bubble, those getting hurt are not the billionaires early investors, unless we actively resist it.

You're either with us or against us, like one of your compatriots used to say.

AI slop is a completely different kind of slop from bad human programming. You can't mix up AI slop and bad human programming into one single category. That's an oversimplification which hinders intelligent discussion.

The only thing I ever got out of doing homework at Uni was a case of beer. The reward for our team coming first in an assignment to devise a strategy for maximizing throughput through a telecoms switch. A far as grades went, midterms and finals set them, 50/50.

But my high school was the same, come to think of it (though it was a Montessori school, a bit different from others). Teachers assigned homework, some even checked that you completed the work, but the only homework that was actually graded were essays. Teachers usually covered the homework quickly at the start of the class, pausing to clarify things if a student had questions. Seems like a good way to find out what students are struggling with, and provide some reinforced learning.

In other words: homework can be a tool to help struggling students to catch up with the class, not to punish them for falling behind. Grading homework is worse than pointless. And in this age of AI, grading homework only further encourages the use of AI.

And it doesn't use MongoDB.

MongoDB is webscale.

Reminds me a little of the short story "Manna" about AI taking over all production, and 2 outcomes for society. As a staunch capitalist, I think that in an AI-driven world, or a "post labour" world or whatever you want to call it, capitalism as a means of distribution of wealth is not going to work. Yes, I think many would argue that it is already failing in that regard, but I would counter that the safeguards we have against people falling through the cracks still mostly work... and more importantly, that we have no better system to replace it. But if work itself pretty much becomes redundant, capitalism will only continue to work if we can find a good answer to the old question: who owns the means of production? And those means ought to include natural resources and land as well.

I am sure there are some good answers, and a way to organize society around that new reality. But I'm not at all convinced either that this is where we are headed. By the time governments would have to take action, they'd be wholly owned by the new aristocracy.

They primarily manage company-internal CAs for big businesses, which they seem to do well. AFAICT, they noticed that their security infrastructure was compliant for managing a global CA, and thought they might as well also have that as a product. However, there are some operational differences between an enterprise CA and a public one, including that companies want to issue client certs to employees but nobody really does global client certs. That means that they had an intermediate CA for global client certs that they never used, but it was in the standard trust store, and nobody tested that it was handled right until Wayne just went through the standard trust store making sure a new certificate weakness detector didn't give false positives.

So eMudhra correctly handled all the certs they issued, and all the certs they used to sign them, but they got some extra CA certs trusted that they didn't really need, because it would make their side business more similar to their main business, and this caused a major problem.

Chances are that they actually got a real random number out of a HSM for the bad CA certs, but accidentally made the certs with the index of the random number instead of the actual number. (That is, they got the 4th random number and made a cert for 4 instead of the number.) I wouldn't be surprised if they stored the correct private key, which would have made leaf certs that didn't validate because the intermediate was wrong, but they never used it to find this problem.

Also an additional question: If AI writes most of your code today and god forbid if both Anthropic + OpenAI close shop tomorrow, who will write most of your code then?

That's right, my point is exactly that. Humans live in the human world where herd mentality is the law and your job as a child is to master enough social patterns so that you can thrive during your lifetime. That game is a lot more complex than trying to pass off an LLM text as a human text.

On your second paragraph, I would merely indicate to you that the high water mark is not the same as the low watermark, or the median or the mean. Pointing to a few instances of "excellent writing" is statistical noise if the bulk of normal LLM written instances does not also qualify as "excellent writing". But if most or all instances of LLM writing objectively constituted "excellent writing" then it would be very easy to spot, as it would stand out against human "average writing". Either way, the in-crowd can recognize the out-crowd.

Excellent! Luckily I have a life outside of slashdot :)

Nope. The Open Source ethos is that you get to use the software (you need explicit permission), and also to see the source code and modify it if you want, provided you contribute back. You can contribute with money, or with resources, or with bug reports, or even with explicit attribution, etc.

What you are seeing here is several generations of startups and small or large businesses using software they found on the internet for free, setting up a website once and never maintaining it. The fact that the software they use is open source is irrelevant. They're not looking at the source, the contractor who built the site is nowhere to be found, and the vulnerabilities are here to stay.

Truly no-one has to worry about this scenario. Anyone who interprets a rejection of AI slop writing as an AI classification problem misses the point.

The point is: humans have many ways to separate the in-crowd from the out-crowd, and it's not well defined what criteria are used.That's what nerds in High School always misunderstand. They think it's about breaking that one specific unfair rule. It's not and never will be.

People who fake their own writing using AI slop can be found out, either after the first incident, or the second, or the third, through a combination of many unrelated things. It doesn't matter what precisely.

Once you're labeled out-crowd, you probably stay there. Maybe you're incensed about it. Maybe you feel it's unfair that you're labeled this way for a single infraction. Doesn't matter. It's not about classification errors and well defined detection problems. It's about being socially accepted or not. There are no fixed rules.

If you fuck up you're out. So don't fuck up in trivial ways that are easy to spot.