Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | chis's commentslogin

I gave up on fable 5 after I asked it to critique my PR and it spit out a page of complete nonsense technical jargon. Like, to the point that I had to review the feedback with other models and try to parse what it was saying and ultimately it wasn't even right. Compare to Astra and Sol where I can almost forget there's a model and just speak/read naturally.

I think I should give 5.1 another chance but I am just so triggered by the way it talks after spending so long battling fable 5.

Also I'm starting to wonder if the latest round of models have finally saturated for my personal coding needs. I mean obviously not for taste and judgement, but those barely seem to improve with model generations. For just spitting out a 1000-line feature I've vaguely scoped out, Astra feels basically as good as I need.


> I don’t think AI is going to usher in an extinction event. In fact, even if nobody were to slow down, I really don’t think humanity would have much to worry about.

I mean sure. If you feel that way then your p doom is zero, and it makes sense to worry about things like market concentration or losing the fun of software engineering.


Problem with p doom is I have no way to seriously evaluate anyone's percentage. The best I can do is rely on experts in a given field, like the recent virologist making a convincing case that no teenager is going to be prompting a doomsday virus into existence, because one doesn't exist and is unlikely to be made. There are too many biological tradeoffs and extremely difficult steps to doing so.

So I'm going to assume that the p doom for bioweapons is 0 in terms of existential threat (pandemics kill millions but not everyone).


Personally I didn't find that guy very convincing. I think current frontier AI would already probably enable a non-expert to do gain-of-function work on a virus which could result in something like Covid.

And AI looks to keep getting better, and if it does then I don't see why it wouldn't become superhuman in virus design too.


Chinese AI companies are a lot smaller in terms of capital, GPUs, and headcount as compared to American. The fact they’ve kept close so far is super impressive

GDP growth and inflation are different things. If inflation-adjusted GDP goes up, that means the average person is able to buy more things they want. Compare living in the US vs India today for the median citizen

Yes they are, inflation-adjusted GDP is efficency. My point exactly, bc I don't think when people say the economy is growing they are ajusting for inflation at all.

Even at the scale of 100 people there is a coordination problem. If the 50 most conscientious researchers quit, then the 50 left behind would be the more aggressive group and be less interested in AI safety.

Personally I agree though. I would not be able to work on AI model development right now as I just don’t think it’s ethical. Fortunately for OAI/Ant I lack the relevant skillset anyways.


Nvidia is limited by the number of engineers they have. It might turn out that the AI market is so lucrative that it’s best to reallocate their gaming-focused engineers to AI.

Apple TV is at least a growth market for them, whereas gaming is sort of capped and clearly a tiny piece of nvidia’s revenue atm.


HN comments are just on a different planet lately lol

We're in interesting times. Trust in AI CEOs, just as an example, is likely about zero and so, unsurprisingly, people are increasingly skeptical of anything they say, question their motives, the timing of their announcements… Huge amounts of capital (perhaps entire economies?) are hanging in the balance.

(Even when I see a number of comments I disagree with, I get at least a sense somewhat of the HN Zeitgeist, FWIW.)


I‘m using Sol all day every day. It’s on average doing better than Astra at what I need it to do. Astra is like an absent minded professor - gives good direct responses, but too inconsistent and forgetful for my codebase.

How long would it take for a team of 60 to replicate the software that operates a neobank?

Serious question - I want serious responses pls ty.


> Opus

> Are there cybersecurity concerns in the frontend? I would have thought you have to assume the client is untrusted and only do security work on the backend.

I hate software engineering now.


Are there cybersecurity concerns in the frontend? I would have thought you have to assume the client is untrusted and only do security work on the backend

1. Not storing secrets properly or using hardcoded secrets

2. Wild use of webviews/iframes sometimes easily propagates as XSS in phones

3. Incorrect client-side OAuth 2.0 configuration e.g. with schema-based redirect URLs.

4. Not supporting high-enough API versions, which may prevent some OS-related weaknesses

5. The list is actually very long. Just few top of my mind.


My favourite is a logout button with a logout API that fails. (Not a huge pratical concern, I admit, because it's a local attack.) Nobody ever notices because it still shows the logout screen, which hides the API error toast (if errors were even displayed). The still valid refresh token stays in sessionStorage (or even localStorage) while the app displays "logged out". (Bonus points if you cleared the access token in the error handler but not the refresh token, and on page reload you ask the user to log in again despite having a valid token.)

Or a login form that gets hidden after login, but clears the username and password only when you click "login back in". (Bonus points if the backend also enforces a 5min session timeout "for security".)


Storing private secrets in your public client is easy to avoid for anyone halfway competent. We are all professionals here.

Turn on the secrets scan in GitLab, and put in your release checklist to have the AI audit the usage of secrets in your app, and this is basically guaranteed not to occur.

I doubt current models even make such a mistake in the first place, and particularly so if you use reviews at all.

WebViews are not an inherent problem, it's the system browser embedded in your app.

Where it gets tricky is if your use case involves authentication in the browser. Together with the authentication in your app this is the one area where you need to focus on security.

The case where a SDK update is needed to prevent weaknesses of the OS seems rather unlikely.


Doing anything right on web is 10x harder and more complex. The problem is the browser, once you use it to deliver anything you have to buy into all of it’s bullshit. CORS, XSS, headers, caching. All that just goes away (outside your backend API, if you even need one) when you ship a native app

Fantastic answer thank you

Nailed it. Assume your client is compromised and/or malicious regardless of how it was built.

This is the most naive take on security ever. For the backend, you assume your client is compromised, but you still don't want to allow your client to be compromised.

If your clients are compromised then what's even the point of backend security. Users will login and do legitimate actions while their compromised client does whatever behind their back, while still looking normal. And the backend can't tell the difference.

The OG pros honestly sucked and had horrible reliability. The other models have treated me well

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: