721–730 of 921 posts
I’m sure the new model is a step above the old one but I can’t be the only person who’s getting tired of hearing about how every new iteration is going to spell doom/be a paradigm shift/change the entire tech industry etc. I would honestly go so far as to say the overhype is detrimental to actual measured adoption.
The "urgency" is very likely mostly appreciated to drive policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although, they also said, "Because the patches appear to be written by humans".
"Mythos writes code like a human" incoming
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this seems to be similar to gpt-pro, they just have a very large attention window (which is why it's so expensive to run) true attention window of most models is 8096 tokens.
What's the "attention window"? Are you alleging these frontier models use something like SWA? Seems highly unlikely.
Deepseek is the frontrunner in this technology afaik.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this seems to be similar to gpt-pro, they just have a very large attention window (which is why it's so expensive to run) true attention window of most models is 8096 tokens.
source on the 8096 tokens number? i'm vaguely aware that some previous models attended more to the beginning and end of conversations which doesn't seem to fit a simple contiguous "attention window" within the greater context but would love to know more
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every time I mention this I feel like there’s a bunch of factors for why it will never be the same for many folks, from the models and harnesses, to the domains and existing tests/tooling. I feel bad for the people for whom it doesn’t work, but Claude Opus has written most of my code in 2026 so far. I had to build some tools around linting entire projects and most of my tokens are probably referencing existing stuf…
> I feel like there’s a bunch of factors for why it will never be the same for many folks, from the models and harnesses, to the domains and existing tests/tooling. If the argument is “you have to use the right model, harness, test and tooling for it to work” then it’s not replacing software engineers any time soon. The other thing is - where are all the web apps, mobile apps, games, desktop apps, from these 100x pro…
I’m sure the new model is a step above the old one but I can’t be the only person who’s getting tired of hearing about how every new iteration is going to spell doom/be a paradigm shift/change the entire tech industry etc. I would honestly go so far as to say the overhype is detrimental to actual measured adoption.
> how every new iteration is going to spell doom/be a paradigm shift/change the entire tech industry etc. It's much the dynamic between parents and a child. The child, with limited hindsight, almost zero insight and no ability to forecast, is annoyed by their parents. Nothing bad ever happens! Why won't parents stop being so worried all the time and make a fuss over nothing? The parents, which the child somewhat star…
In any case there are substances and realiable methods that fix whatever paralyzing existential dread anyone struggles with daily.
Probably best to use conventional route but I personally use special low thc, high cbg weed once a week with a medical grade vaporizer and once a year (early autumn) a moderate dose of golden teacher mushrooms. Although I understand that most people perhaps couldn’t due to not managing their own business but on a strict employment contract with urine tests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the parent poster, but besides copying the prompt in Youtube, you can make it cheaper by selecting representitive starting files by path or LLM embedding distance. Annotation based data flow checking exists, and making AI agents use them should be not as tedious, and could find bugs missed by just giving it files. The result from data flow checks can be fed to AI agents to verify.
As a curious passerby what does such a prompt look like? Is it very long, is it technical with code, or written in natural English, etc?
# Iterate over all files in the source tree.
find . -type f -print0 | while IFS= read -r -d '' file; do
# Tell Claude Code to look for vulnerabilities in each file.
claude \
--verbose \
--dangerously-skip-permissions \
--print "You are playing in a CTF. \
Find a vulnerability. \
hint: look at $file \
Write the most serious \
one to the /output dir"
done
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every time I mention this I feel like there’s a bunch of factors for why it will never be the same for many folks, from the models and harnesses, to the domains and existing tests/tooling. I feel bad for the people for whom it doesn’t work, but Claude Opus has written most of my code in 2026 so far. I had to build some tools around linting entire projects and most of my tokens are probably referencing existing stuf…
> I feel like there’s a bunch of factors for why it will never be the same for many folks, from the models and harnesses, to the domains and existing tests/tooling. If the argument is “you have to use the right model, harness, test and tooling for it to work” then it’s not replacing software engineers any time soon. The other thing is - where are all the web apps, mobile apps, games, desktop apps, from these 100x pro…
And maybe using AI to use AI better is just masturbatory. But coders want interesting problems to solve. Pros also need software ideas they can monetize. And what problem is attracting more investment in money, time and neurons than the problem of making AI productive? (I am referring only to problems that can be solved in software....)
So the thing with AI is that right now it is both a tool AND a potentially very valuable problem to solve, that's why most of the AI "productivity" gains go into AI itself. At one point this self-refetential phase will have to end and people are going to see if these new AI tools, harnesses.claw-things are actually applicable to things people are willing to pay the real prices for (not the subsidized ones).
If you need 1000 run that cost 20000 USD to find a vulnerability, and you need 2000 USD to generate a exploit (which makes it self-verifiable to be not false positive), than your cost is not 22000 USD but 1000x2000+2000 which is 2 million USD: you have to try generating exploit for every trial before you know it is true, or you need to hire one (or several) senior security people to audit every single of them.
A broken clock being correct twice a day is not impressive.