“Could become”
Already is and widely used for exactly what the article worries about
Source?
Readit Newssrcreigh commented on WiFi could become an invisible mass surveillance system scitechdaily.com/research... · Posted by u/mgh2
srcreigh commented on Ex-GitHub CEO launches a new developer platform for AI agents entire.io/blog/hello-enti... · Posted by u/meetpateltech
The most interesting thing about everyone trying to position themselves as AI experts is the futility of it: the technology explicitly promises tomorrows models will be better then todays, which means the skill investment is deflationary: the best time to learn anything is tomorrow when a better model will be better at doing the same work - because you don't need to be (conversely if you're not good at debugging and reverse engineering now...)
> the technology explicitly promises tomorrows models will be better then todays, which means the skill investment is deflationary
This is just wrong. A) It doesn’t promise improvement B) Even if it does improve, that doesn’t say anything about skill investment. Maybe its improvements amplify human skill just as they have so far.
I really don't understand the use-case here.
My models are writing code all day in 3/4 different languages, why would I want to:
a) Restrict them to Python
b) Restrict them to a cutdown, less-useful version of Python?
My models write me Typescript and C# and Python all day with zero issues. Why do I need this?
It’s a sandbox. If your model generates and runs a script for each email in your inbox and has access to sensitive information, you want to make sure it can’t communicate externally.
srcreigh commented on Software factories and the agentic moment factory.strongdm.ai/... · Posted by u/mellosouls
This is just sleight of hand.
In this model the spec/scenarios are the code. These are curated and managed by humans just like code.
They say "non interactive". But of course their work is interactive. AI agents take a few minutes-hours whereas you can see code change result in seconds. That doesn't mean AI agents aren't interactive.
I'm very AI-positive, and what they're doing is different, but they are basically just lying. It's a new word for a new instance of the same old type of thing. It's not a new type of thing.
The common anti-AI trope is "AI just looked at <human output> to do this." The common AI trope from the StrongDM is "look, the agent is working without human input." Both of these takes are fundamentally flawed.
AI will always depend on humans to produce relevant results for humans. It's not a flaw of AI, it's more of a flaw of humans. Consequently, "AI needs human input to produce results we want to see" should not detract from the intelligence of AI.
Why is this true? At a certain point you just have Kolmogorov complexity, AI having fixed memory and fixed prompt size, pigeonhole principle, not every output is possible to be produced even with any input given specific model weights.
Recursive self-improvement doesn't get around this problem. Where does it get the data for next iteration? From interactions with humans.
With the infinite complexity of mathematics, for instance solving Busy Beaver numbers, this is a proof that AI can in fact not solve every problem. Humans seem to be limited in this regard as well, but there is no proof that humans are fundamentally limited this way like AI. This lack of proof of the limitations of humans is the precise advantage in intelligence that humans will always have over AI.
srcreigh commented on Typechecking is undecidable when 'type' is a type (1989) [pdf] dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/... · Posted by u/zem
Yes the type theoretic analog to Russel's (set theoretic) paradox is Girard's (as mentioned in the abstract) paradox.
This is incorrect. The set paradox it’s analogous to is the inability to make the set of all ordinals. Russel’s paradox is the inability to make the set of all sets.
srcreigh commented on C++ Modules Are Here to Stay faresbakhit.github.io/e/c... · Posted by u/faresahmed
Author here. Sadly, this had to be done, otherwise you would not see anything on the chart. I added an extra progress bar below, so that people would not get a wrong impression.
Hey, sorry about that. I find your site very charming. Yeah it takes a few seconds to understand, but that's completely fine imo.
You are excused if the site misleads anybody, just because you published "Estimated completion date: 2195". That's just so awesome. Kudos.
srcreigh commented on C++ Modules Are Here to Stay faresbakhit.github.io/e/c... · Posted by u/faresahmed
https://arewemodulesyet.org/ gives you an overview which libraries already provide a module version.
Wow, the way this data is presented is hilarious.
Log scale: Less than 3% done, but it looks like over 50%.
Estimated completion date: 10 March 2195
It would be less funny if they used an exponential model for the completion date to match the log scale.
Writing code without the borrow checker is the same as writing code with the borrow checker. If it wouldn't pass the borrow checker, you're doing something wrong.
Idk. Did you see the "Buffer reuse" section of this blog post? [1]
Kudos to that guy for solving the puzzle, but I really don't want to use a special trick to get the compiler to let me reuse a buffer in a for loop.
[1]: https://davidlattimore.github.io/posts/2025/09/02/rustforge-...
I don't really want to learn how to use the borrow checker, LLM help or not, and I don't really want to use a language that doesn't have a reputation for very fast compile/dev workflow, LLM help or not.
Re; Go, I don't want to use a language that is slower than C, LLM help or not.
Zig is the real next Javascript, not Rust or Go. It's as fast or faster than C, it compiles very fast, it has fast safe release modes. It has incredible meta programming, easier to use even than Lisp.
> To allow for an unobstructed gait recording, participants were instructed not to wear any baggy clothes, skirts, dresses or heeled shoes.
> Due to technical unreliabiltities, not all recordings resulted in usable data. For our experiments, we use 170 and 161 participants for CSI and BFI, respectively. [out of 197]
I wish they had explained what the technical unreliabilities were.