I have found including this in my AGENTS.md to be quite transformative in this regard:
> Always use an aggressive red/green TDD-approach. It is critical to remember that in the red phase, things like module/exports import failures due to trying to import file paths that don't yet exist, exports that don't yet exist, etc. is not valid TDD. For valid TDD, the test cases must actually run. For this, you must create stubs of the expected modules and exports in the red phase, so that the test cases actually run and fail on the test case assertions themselves. In some cases, when using this approach, once in a while some of the red phase test cases might "incidentally" pass, and this is ok. Before running red phase tests you should always make predictions about the number of test cases you expect to fail/pass -- this count is not the number of test files or test suites, but rather the number of test cases. By performing these red phase expected counts of passing/failing test cases, it will help you catch errors in your prior reasoning quickly and efficiently.
> Always use a proof-driven, scientific method-based approach to validate hypotheses, assumptions, and conclusions: define the smallest falsifiable hypothesis, create or identify a reproducible failing case, gather direct evidence, make the smallest targeted change, and then re-run the same proof to confirm the issue is fixed. Avoid speculative fixes, broad rewrites, or changing multiple variables at once. When possible, preserve the reproduction as a regression test before implementing the fix. Consider that when gathering evidence, additional logging and durable files can be very helpful.
> The strict TDD and proof-driven approaches described above could be described as "proof-driven development". Try to internalize and generalize these concepts, as they are broadly applicable.
Lots and lots of automation, along with long-running multi-instance headless tasks. My usage, which I was on the verge of increasing via a second Max plan, would cost 3 figures per day, rather than per month. I already know this because my initial tooling was prototyped against direct API usage, and that was the cost of my usage patterns.
That is not sustainable for me. I understand that Anthropic can't subsidize all of us forever, but this will force me away from claude which is unfortunate. A number of the people I work with are similarly affected.
It's a bit disheartening that this is generating so little discussion (this thread seems to be the one with the most comments, currently at 8).
99% of my max plan usage is non-interactive, and this post-June 15 pricing will far, far exceed what I can afford. I assume this applies to a great deal of us.
Last week (Sunday to Sunday) I had a repo running a lot of cron workflows 24/7. After like 4 or 5 days I exceeded the free limits (Pro plan) and so set up self hosted runners.
After like day 2 my workflows would take 10-15 minutes past their trigger time to show up and be queued. And switching to the self hosted runners didn't change that. Happens every time with every workflow, whether the workflow takes 10 seconds or 10 minutes.
Odd that you would omit the part of the text you quoted that contradicts the impression your partial quote creates.
> The images were initially believed to have been obtained via a breach of Apple's cloud services suite iCloud, or a security issue in the iCloud API which allowed them to make unlimited attempts at guessing victims' passwords. Apple claimed in a press release that access was gained via spear phishing attacks.
I also found it notable that the source for the above unlimited password guessing password guessing is an Apple press release that states no such thing.
Also interesting was that all sources in that article suggesting anything about unlimited attempts describe to an app or script (unclear which) called iDar, which the only source to actual name iDar claims that it reports success 100% of the time, regardless of its actual success in guessing the password.
I've no love for Apple. Maybe it's true. But the evidence presented in this wiki article is weak.
Oh sorry, you're right. Here's an article[1] about Facebook, from the same outlet. With some cursory searching I couldn't find anything about other social networks hiring former three letter agency employees.
Heh, mostly as an experiment. I'd done a fair bit of scraping for some personal football apps over the past few years. Was curious about how GPT might be used when starting from first principles, as well as its abilities to solve specific challenges encountered with the traditional approach.
> an enormous amount of empirical data underscores the risk to an individual's health posed by the consumption of cigarettes and, therefore, it can be argued that a parent allowing their children to smoke could potentially amount to child endangerment or abuse, depending on the context.
1. Would you agree that reasonable people exist who, right or wrong, believe that the psychological toll of SM on children, while not in the same universe as the physical toll of cigarettes, still manages to cross the line of "this is sufficiently harmful that the government must make parenting decisions"?
2. Are you open to the possibility that, in a hypothetical future with sufficient empirical data, those beliefs might be shown to be accurate?
I don't have children / a horse in this race, I'm more exploring your position about the role of government.
As someone who has been doing the same thing recently, here's how I solved the issue where the page content has to be in the initial HTML.
The first thing I did was fall back to a headless browser. Let it sit for 5 seconds to let the page render, then snatch the innerText.
But 5-10% of sites do a good job of showing you the door for being a robot.
I wanted to try and solve those cases by taking a screenshot of the page and using GPT-4 visual inputs, but when I got access I realized that 1) visual inputs aren't available yet and 2) holy crap is GPT-4 expensive.
So instead what I do is give a screenshot service the url, get back a full-page PNG, then I hand that off to GCP Cloud Vision to OCR it. The OCRed text then gets fed into GPT-3.5 like normal.
When this topic has come up with family and friends, folks often say that they aren't worried (yet) because while a human can be fooled, they can't yet fool readily available forensic tools, and perhaps can't ever.
I can't speak to the veracity of that claim, but as the post points out, the past several years has shown us that it doesn't matter, not in the least.
The author goes on to say how it feels inevitable that we'll see a Bannon or Stone type use this technology to create fake scandals.
I'm more worried about the grass roots efforts. Crowdsourced conspiracies like QAnon. Now they'll have more capable tools to radicalize people.
What I found particularly striking about them was how much they reminded me of both neurons and larger brain structures, as well as some of those newer, ML-assisted FMRI imagery.
Probably just coincidence and wishful thinking, but it instills a sense of daydream-like wonder all the same.
It routinely bothers me a bit that, IME, most IRL discussions of the Fermi paradox tend to omit this rather simple explanation.
Half the time it's brought up, FTL is offered as the solution. Which as best we can tell is fundamentally impossible.
That squishy or otherwise organic bodies are generally unable to travel interstellar distances has always seemed to me to be the simplest solution.
Assuming intelligent life is out there, surely there are civilizations that have destroyed themselves and so on. But lack of FTL travel would be a common constraint, regardless of all other scenarios.
For prior art, see what happened to Aereo. A little-known fact is that YouTube TV started with the exact same strategy. But Google, of course, had more money and lawyers to get over the hump.
I spent a couple years on the YouTube Music team, adjacent to the folks who handled the nightmare that is music rights and licensing.
It was explained to me that the reason YouTube didn't offer a karaoke feature -- despite having licenses to a lot of lyrics -- is that karaoke is considered a separate license.
Even if you license both the recording and the lyrics, combining them into a karaoke feature isn't on the table by default.
I personally have no idea how accurate that is, but this was the scoop I got from those in a position of authority.
If it is indeed true, then perhaps that is a factor in Apple's decision not to use that word.
I am an avid carnivore that hopes to consume only lab grown meat in the future. I've met many people like me. You may be underestimating the size of this group.
That said, like many others in these comments, I'll be waiting at least 10 years to understand the long term effects, if any.