Humans cannot be in the loop for autonomous work. I have agents review code and design/architecture documents, write alert messages based on rules, write analyses (e.g. outage incidents), and many other things. "Having a person write words" would mean not using agents, defeating the whole point.
I do not use agents to write on behalf of myself. I write my won technical write-ups and my own slide presentations. A lot of people don't; and it shows. There's much that agents can do better than humans now, but not everything.
What is the intended goal of this website? The doctor told you smoking is bad so you're going to give your child a pack a day and see if they die by age 20? If they don't, obviously, your doctor is a quack who cries wolf, and you shouldn't listen to that killjoy anyway :/
C'mon guys, I get that OpenAI is involved and they want to make ten trillion dollars next year or whatever, but I thought we had put the idea of random nonexperts trying to judge how "hard" something is to exploit to rest years ago. The guys who used to try doing this lost repeatedly, publicly, until we finally realized that we have to secure our stuff. Sure it's annoying to update your computer every week and sometimes some guy at Forbes is going to tell you that if you don't install iOS 67 today you will get hacked by the Mossad which may not have been entirely true but when you have memory corruption in a reasonably common configuration that faces the public internet, you should patch your software. End of story.
We can argue all day about the cost to exploit something, whether it is "hard for humans" or what it would cost on the black market or in this case how many tokens are required, but that is mostly just a distraction. Just patch your stuff. The people involved here are (currently) paid by AI companies just like ten years ago they were paid by the ads companies but despite the annoying way our economy works they mostly know what they are doing. I get that this is annoying, I understand that nobody wants to hear the words memory safety again, but this is anti-intellectualism. "Ask HN: Can you explain how the PHP bug could be exploited?" would be far more productive than having a bunch of weary sysadmins duke it out in the comment section against security guys.
The goal is to see whether the “pull the cord on all your servers RIGHT NOW” panic was the appropriate response, and whether the embargo was the right approach.
> You can see that the blog post does not claim to solve the halting problem;
Yes, true, they just ignored it and made unsupportable claims. And the Halting Problem cannot be "solved," that is what the Halting Problem says and proves.
> Ideally, such techniques could find and patch all bugs, and then provide some proof that there are no more to be found.
The claim "Find and patch all bugs" is false. This is computer science 101. It is not possible. All one can say is that the claims are well-repeated. They aren't supported at all.
If you were a little slower to jump to conclusions you might see that the blog post does not actually make the elementary blunder of not understanding how Rice's Theorem works, and that the claims made are qualified correctly as they come from people who are quite good at understanding what formal verification is and can do ;)
They're all in regards to design choices or why something is needed when it's not obvious. And such a level of polish in the interface isn't something you attain through prompting. Not AI.
I don't really know what to tell you but the comments are definitely Claude. The result is pretty good but AI was definitely involved in the creation of this.
I don't think he is paid but you can look through his comment history and find that his opinions of Grok and its affiliated entities are definitely slanted.
Or maybe your opinion of Grok and its affiliated entities is slanted, and mine is straight. Without an objective reference point from which to measure deviation, all you're measuring is the relative angle between our opinions.
It's also worth noting that, living in an unfavourable time zone relative to most HN activity, I'm rarely here to offer the opening opinions in a discussion. More often I'm arriving 12 hours into a conversation, where everything I'd want to say has already been said. I end up contributing only where I think a different perspective is missing. Naturally, that means my comment history will disproportionately reflect the rare instances where my opinions buck the prevailing HN orthodoxy.
If you disagree with a particular claim I've made, by all means challenge it on its merits. That could be the basis of a much more interesting conversation than this fatuous one.
I don't actually care that much for Grok the model because I think they are more or less homogenous with like, a small house spin on how "smart" they are and some other features like their behavior in a harness etc. Personally I have no problem believing that it might be good at doing what you ask directly instead of wandering or trying to be independent or whatever. I wouldn't call it out as paid marketing and I also just don't really think about this topic very much.
However, the comment I did reply to seemed to think that just because you ran a forum that you would be unlikely to be biased. This is like obviously false, if anything you have major internet brain where you spend enough time on the internet where you come up with a whole complex about how you are contributing the uncommon opinion the site needs to hear or whatever, when it's just the same dreck from the rest of the internet sprinkled in here when it hasn't been posted enough by someone else. That is not directly "I used Grok and thought it was good at x" but, like, it's clear that it's something that is at the periphery of a whole network of positions you hold that are aligned this way.
I don't necessarily think this is bad and in fact I think most people on the internet at least basically post in this way but I do think it's important to be aware of it at least. I'm not sure you are. I can tell you more or less where my slop opinions come from and I don't think it would be accurate in any capacity to describe them as bucking "the prevailing HN orthodoxy". I, uh, think you should probably describe your comments differently.
I sincerely tried to read your response but I couldn't make heads or tails of it. Is this speech to text? Were you inebriated at the time? Can you rewrite it for me?
I wish
reply