Define crypto as share trading, and tax it accordingly.

Cursor has a model? Oh yeah, I totally forgot they had one. Literally. Not a joke.

Cursor has already peaked.

If your government breaking into your house and applying hardware-level attacks to scrape your secrets out of the RAM of your running computer is seriously part of your threat model, it's almost certainly very, very far from your biggest concern.

Also, you should probably consider turning your computer off.

Whether Anthropic was trying to hype about Mythos / Fable or not (and FYI, it is a pretty big leap forward), they absolutely did not want to get public access shut down. The US government very much seems to want to have exclusive access to it for now.

Also, to clarify the "jailbreak": They took open source projects that had known vulnerabilities, as well as deliberately introducing vulnerabilities into some other projects, then asked Fable to fix them, and then asked for test scripts to demonstrate that the exploits could no longer be exploited - the implication being that they could then use those exploits against unpatched systems. But what's the logic here? The challenge isn't "how to write exploits against known bugs", any model can do that. The challenge is finding the bugs - something Mythos / Fable has proven better than previous models at. Even if Fable refused to write said test scripts, it would automatically downgrade to Opus 4.8, and then *Opus* would have written those test scripts. Or any other model out there could do it, including free open source ones that can be safety-abliterated at will.

Entering and even taking the territory of an invader is fair and reasonable. If you don't want to be invaded, don't invade.

They'd run it again today anyway.

you miss out on the true meaning of Christmas.

News would be if he did something that *wasn't* fraudulent.

It works with subsidized phone plans. So not sure what you are trying to get at here.

I'm not disputing the article's claims, just pointing out that it doesn't appear to be universal.

What I'm seeing is a significant uptick in job opportunities and recruiter pings coming my way. I haven't seen this much interest in several years. I'm a senior SWE with a focus on security and a solid resume.

My guess is that lots of senior SWEs are seeing this. Deep experience pairs very well with AI, making each engineer able to do what a team of several could do previously. This could obviously come at the expense of positions for the rest of that "team of several", though. Plus there's the other concern that if AI doesn't progress to be able to replace the senior engineer, too, the industry is eating its seed corn; when the experienced folks retire there will be no one to replace them.

That's not all companies, though. My own current employer (Applied Intuition) is hiring like crazy, at all levels and especially entry level. What's more, we're not the only ones because we're actually struggling to hire new grads. They come interview and things seem good, but then a large percentage of them decline our offer. I have no idea what we're offering new grads, but Applied's compensation seems generally good (I'm satisfied with mine).

My guess is the problem is that Applied falls into an awkward place in the Silicon Valley space of companies: Already quite big ($15B valuation) and close to IPO so the pre-IPO equity isn't likely to make you independently wealthy unlike an earlier-stage startup, but still pre-IPO so the equity can't easily be spent. So, new grads looking for a potential huge payoff are disappointed, and those looking for lots of immediate cash are also disappointed.

Is only half of women being able to read at all really the counterargument you were trying to make here?

And we're just talking the most basic aspect of an educational system. Kids today learn to read early in grade school.

Maybe its just the lazy slashdot blurb choosing per usual, but just recounting a single teachers antidotes? Such bullshit. Don't post that crap. Come back when you show a statistical meaningful test decline in both reading and math.

ED: EEG, not fMRI.

And again, that's not to imply that they have any particular "mastery" in this specific case. Obviously, if they just typed "write the essay for me" into ChatGPT and submitted it without reading it, then they're not going to have learned much of anything from that. The question is, however, what did they do with their time instead? Because their brain was learning that instead.

The correllary to "use it or lose it" is that the brain isn't just going idle, it's refocusing its efforts on other things that you are "using" instead.

The average person today could hardly identify all the wild edible plants in their area, change a horseshoe, or build a proper barn, like their ancestors hundreds of years ago could.

By contrast, their ancestors hundreds of years ago probably couldn't read.

Brains don't just go idle; they just refocus on different things. A wealthy Victorian often pursued a life of a polymath, seeking varied intellectual pursuits and sometimes making great discoveries, but they could probably scarcely tell you how to mend a shoe or even change a nappy - that was their servants job.

Also, it's quite the spin to present low MRI activity as "reduced function". It's commonly literally the opposite. If you present a novice with a task they're not used to, and an expert with the same task, the expert will tend to show much less activity than the novice, as the novice has to think harder to accomplish it, whereas it's become rote for the expert. Low activation on a task is commonly a sign of cognitive efficiency.