Crisis communications is a real field. Most companies aren't prepared for it in advance and do it poorly as a result, but there are specialist consultants who are good at getting it right (source: close friend who did this kind of work for many years - it is not a pretty business, and often involves significant human failings).
I don't mean to belittle the letter, but Jensen's PR firm undoubtedly helped with the letter and undoubtedly had advisors who specialize in this.
Or, you know, you could be a stand up person and be genuinely contrite.
He's a big time CEO and his company is impacted by how well he handles it. So of course there are PR/crisis people around. They specialize in making psychopaths look human.
But leaders are where they are because they make good decisions - their character does matter. Calling in the image-fixer types to clean up your mistakes is easy mode.
Yes, total failure on many counts. But when called to answer for it, you can respond like a flawed human or you can have a pr crisis firm present you as a bland corporate robot who says things like “if anyone was offended I apologize” or “we’re going to investigate how this happened.”
I think his answer was solid and seemed genuine. Doesn’t mean I think he’s got good judgment generally, but at least this was not a shitty thing to say.
It can be turned off. You get a pop-up as soon as you open the site.
I’m on the other side of this and I think this is a great social feature for websites.
One thing the web currently lacks is multiplayer mode, and this is one way of doing it.
It does make more sense to have something like this in sites where you can move things, and canvases, but I do think it would be nice to have this + a chatroom in websites. Some sort of “good old internet” feeling.
> We study a common intermediate setting: a developer pastes one complete file into a chat assistant [5], which sees the file’s internal structure but not its callers or dependencies.
Ack! Do people actually try to develop software this way?
Not any more, but it was common before Claude Code came along (~18 months ago). Based on the model versions used it may have still been the most common thing when the paper was started.
I do it from time to time when I’ve run out of tokens at the end of the month. But even then I’ve created a script to pack multiple code files and their dependencies into a single txt, with a tree overview.
And of course you never change the test suite in the process… That would be bad developer practice, LLM or not.
Gemini 3.1 Pro can easily work with this effectively, if not a bit slower than an agent.
No, they test what LLM are capable of this way. They then examine the results by reading the code and reasoning about the changes the LLM made, rather than just throwing up their arms and going "Ack!" as if that's anything.
If LLMs can edit weights directly to achieve desired ends as recently reported[0], then this class of Agentic Backdoors likely becomes even easier and more prevalent.
herdr is great, and the original runs-in-a-terminal vision was cool, but at least on OSX it has a ton of selection management bugs that are pretty sucky.
I want to support JetBrains. I've loved their products. But we're a couple years into the AI revolution and their response is non-existent.
Claude is still using sed and grep.
Why haven't JetBrains turned their amazing tools into amazing tools for AI harnesses to leverage? I no longer right-mouse-click on method names to rename them or to go to the definition, but my AI still needs to be able to do that, constantly.
I want to renew, but I can't see any reason why I would. Complete failure of leadership.
P.s. Worktrees? This product announcement is about supporting worktrees? They do realize just telling Claude to "blah blah in a worktree" already works, right?
>Why? Why should we give up being critical of things we read?
Remember how pre-AI everyone used to complain about hating how this or that website hijacked scrolling? Countless words were written about hijacked scrollbars and back buttons. Zero conversations were improved by the comments and zero websites were changed as a result. It was just complaining.
"Boo hoo AI" is the same kind of low-effort, complain about everything while adding nothing to the conversation post.
Instead, try to say something more substantive than "I found a word or phrase that I think was AI."
I wish I would have saved it, but there was something posted here a number of months back that people were saying had AI generated text and pictures (they could tell because of the pixels). Turns out it was an article from 2017.
It's just ironic to me how so many people are confidently incorrect about it, we are the LLMs in this case spouting 'facts' that we are sure of.
The context around copyright of LLM code, at least in the US, is currently more complicated than clear. See for example [0] and the comments on the article it's responding to.
I don't mean to belittle the letter, but Jensen's PR firm undoubtedly helped with the letter and undoubtedly had advisors who specialize in this.
reply