Which is why Dario is making such a big effort to make AI seem so dangerous and wants it regulated, because Anthropic can provide "safeguards" while open source will find it hard pressed to do so.
The question is if your "secret sauce" will stay secret as you use Anthropic's products, considering they've been launching specialised models like Claude Legal and Design. What happened to Figma with Claude Design should be a warning sign.
Also Nine Sols. It's becoming increasingly popular as games are moving the complexity/flashiness of interactions with enemies to the enemy's side.
Rather than learn and perform complex combos like Devil May Cry, the enemies now are the ones with very flashy movesets and now you simply parry/dodge.
I've seen a few organizations consider moving from ADO to GitHub (only repos and CI/CD pipelines) due to the new fancy AI features, but this frequent downtime has been a constant in meetings.
I do see one Googler in the Twitter chain saying "Sorry. This will be fixed." but I wonder how these Google projects get insights from customers if they can't get through the AI support barrier to a proper human.
Or is the current expectation that everyone needs to shout on Twitter to get their Google problems solved?
Reminds me of Telegram that forces you to pay premium to login to a new device depending on the country. Login, not registration. This is all due to the cost of SMSes of course.
You can bypass this if you have a passkey, but phone and password isn't enough. No idea why they opted to do that, it's not like passkeys are indicative of any device binding.
Yes but this is merely an abstraction of SEPA Instant transfers to not have to write an IBAN when sending money.
The issue to solve is payments, Portugal for instance has its Multibanco payment scheme, but it's only used in Portugal.
I assume eventually it'll be cobranded with Wero like it happened to Netherlands' iDEAL and eventually fully replaced.
The obsidian vault is to already have the chosen plugin pre-selected and is part of the social engineering effort, that's not the main problem.
The issue is that this could happen to anyone who just searches the malicious plugin's name and installs it. Worse if it's a popular one that gets compromised.
The pop-ups and "social engineering" in question are things that any users in HN likely already accepted, which is to enable community plugins.
These community plugins are the backbone of Obsidian and where a lot of the meat is behind its fame come from.
There's no protections beyond that, community plugins can do whatever they want. Thankfully, the vast majority of them are open-source.
PSD2 is merely a framework for an uniform access to banking, same APIs everywhere. While you can send money through it, it's still through the same means as normal.
Many of the european countries have their own "Pix", but there's no European-wide alternative. The ECB wants to make one (tentatively titled "digital euro"), but it's going to take a long time to come out.
>Third, employees that can leverage AI to be more productive are more valuable than before. Why would an employer want to get rid of somebody that is now delivering more?
Here's a charitable take, assuming there's no messed up internal politics in a company going on: Because not everyone at a company is working at the same speed.
If you have developers who are now sitting around doing almost nothing because the stakeholders and product teams aren't using AI yet, then you have a bottleneck. Even before LLMs, if you had an excess of developers to the speed the teams they depend on deliver, you'd lay them off all the same.
There's two ways to go about this: The company either lays off engineers and delivers at the same speed as it did before, trading personnel cost for tokens (Showing it's a company that doesn't want to grow or is currently unable to), or alternatively the company keeps things as is and forces the rest of the departments to grow with the new added velocity from the engineering teams.
Wonder what will be the consequences of this. I dislike Denuvo for the performance and stability penalties it gives games, but I do wonder if the "security" it gave publishers wasn't a big part of the reason why we've been getting more and more big name games on PC.
This isn't about being right or wrong but about what the publishers will do when they see their games are again getting cracked day one, and if it'll be a catalyst to again return to getting either less PC releases or at least delayed releases compared to consoles.
It's a problem. Seniors with AI perform far better because they have the skills and experience to properly review the LLM's plans and outputs.
Juniors don't have that skillset yet, but they're being pushed to use AI because their peers are using it. Where do you draw the line?
What will happen when the current senior developers start retiring? What will happen when a new technology shows up that LLMs don't have human-written code to be trained on? Will pure LLM reasoning and generated agent skills be enough to bridge the gap?
It's all very interesting questions about the future of the development process.