11–20 of 228 posts
Why does this section not have when it was fixed or GitHub acknowledge/rejected this?
Did they not fix this?
Large corporations like Microsoft under constant pressure from investors are slapping AI onto every single product offering just so they can claim they're an AI company now. Just like what Adobe did. So yeah, that didn't end well and probably this wouldn't either. Consumers are getting tired of these half-assed AI integrations and there will be a breaking point soon.
Seriously like everything is instant when you click around, and CI with a runner works beautifully. (The documentation for setting up the runner could be a tad clearer but otherwise everything was so painless.)
Large corporations like Microsoft under constant pressure from investors are slapping AI onto every single product offering just so they can claim they're an AI company now. Just like what Adobe did. So yeah, that didn't end well and probably this wouldn't either. Consumers are getting tired of these half-assed AI integrations and there will be a breaking point soon.
The revenue is there and also impressive, and supplanting consumer and seat based revenue
The market is still shedding SaaS multiples, which I think is accurate, but break out the revenue in those quarterly reports and there is a huge growth story, from real efficiencies
Who thought having a LLM with access to private information, with public access to ask it questions, would ever be a secure process? Look I like interacting with these tools as much as the next guy, but I'm certainly not going to trust them with access to information and then allow anyone to send them prompts. Edit/further thoughts: So (assumable as they said this is disclosed with github's knowledge) this has been p…
It must be something to do with Microsoft being the owner now of GitHub
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea agreed. LLM guardrails are either just written prompts as in "Please do not bad stuff :(" or other LLMs verifying that the first LLM didn't so some bs. Both of wich methods do not work sufficiently as time shows again and again. Funnily enough, nobody expects quality software anymore and errors became tolerable. So thats a win (for someone like me that lost all passion for the industry).
That last part is I think called negligence. And in some industries that becomes criminal negligence quite quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea agreed. LLM guardrails are either just written prompts as in "Please do not bad stuff :(" or other LLMs verifying that the first LLM didn't so some bs. Both of wich methods do not work sufficiently as time shows again and again. Funnily enough, nobody expects quality software anymore and errors became tolerable. So thats a win (for someone like me that lost all passion for the industry).
Agree with your assessment of guardrails. They barely work on the best days. We need to flip the idea of “agent” on its head. The agent here is an agent of the user interfacing with GitHub. Not an agent of GitHub interfacing with the user. Prompts and guardrails cannot keep the agent loyal to the company. Stop giving these things any permissions the user doesn’t have, and recognize them for what they are: a different…
> Responsible Disclosure GitLost was responsibly disclosed to GitHub. Vulnerability details are shared here with their knowledge. Why does this section not have when it was fixed or GitHub acknowledge/rejected this? Did they not fix this?