3 responses, all from green accounts basically hurling the same vitriol at you.

Has someone gone and made 3 accounts to make it seem like their take is more popular?

Yes, and they’re being a bit too obvious about it.

You almost have hope for them from the total number until you realize the vast majority of that green is made up of NVIDIA

I don’t know if those companies are doing it for the right reasons but I’ve implemented a policy of showing me that you can do the job manually as well.

The reason being that if you can’t then you probably can’t tell when the AI is wrong.

My company is strictly Cybersecurity/IR though so that may vary with other specialties.

If the interview was specifically about doing it manually that’s one thing.

I called them schizophrenic because the companies I’ve interviewed with seem like they desperately want to be on the AI bandwagon and want you to demonstrate the ability to effectively use AI, but they don’t currently know how to evaluate that and panic and default back to their old heuristics.

It is very difficult in 45-50 minutes to complete a task when the criteria change partway through.

Oh yeah no that’s just a terrible interview process.

I think schizophrenic is a great way to describe that.

Never go full Philip J. Fry.

Literally all of these people write like this. A large portion of them will either be simultaneously or eventually working towards nothing but self-enrichment.

Every version of the AI aligned future where the AI provides “meaning and fulfillment” to humanity also involves Sam Altman wearing a 1.5 million dollar Patek and driving a McLaren.

Funny how that works.

Altman was very wealthy before OpenAI, and he declined to take any equity in OpenAI. How does that fit your theory?

Is the only wealth represented in money? If that was the case than the vast majority of these people could have wrapped it up and left the game years ago.

Power is the game.

This explains nothing. Money buys a lot of power, and he could have easily just had both.

Nah, money doesn’t buy ALL power.

Only power of a certain kind (read ownership of a system that many rely on) can’t be bought.

Again, this misses the point. Why did he turn down an equity stake that likely would have been worth hundreds of billions? It's not like it would have jeopardized the power you're talking about.

If anything that proves the point. The power wasn’t in the money (which he already had plenty of, as you say).

Look, in the future we may get to a point where LLMs are indistinguishable from humans in writing style.

Even then, I would say that using an LLM is robbing you of the process of writing, a process that is crucial to developing and understanding your own ideas.

Think about the last time you wrote something for consumption and the sentence to sentence thought processes you’re going through. I bet a lot of that was “is that right?” Or “does that make sense?” Or “am I communicating this at the level of my reader?”.

All of that is fundamental to your readers understanding, but more importantly, its fundamental to YOUR understanding.

"Writing is nature’s way of letting you know how sloppy your thinking is." -- Guindon

This premise seems pretty solid (and somewhat obvious) to me. The distinction between scaffolding and substitution can be applied to just about any skill so why not here?

This makes more sense at least than the “just another abstraction layer” argument that’s been thankfully dying out recently.

I run an IR company focused on specific security response emergencies.

AI use across my company is variable and I don’t allow any enforcement of mandatory using or not using of it.

I view and tell my employees to view their skills as that of a high-performing athlete. Consistent training of the basics, rapid fire what-if testing, weekly scenarios are all part of the upkeep.

In short, this is what it takes to keep up the skills no matter if you do or don’t use AI and I can imagine the degradation is much faster if you don’t train AND delegate all of your activity to AI.

I don’t understand how this comment is productive for any of the groups involved. Can you explain it to me?

It doesn't try to be productive.

It's exposing the hypocrisy of privileged groups suddenly being treated like regular people, when they did NOTHING for decades to help others or even to protect themselves ("f** you, got mine", rockstar programmer, 10x programmer, talents everywhere, etc mentality). No unions, no collective bargaining, sheer individual greed.

Do you think that all programmers have always existed in the US?

On that note, do you think that all programmers in the US are these Silicon Valley stereotypes?

Plenty of programmers in the US make normal wages for professionals with degrees doing things not at the technology companies famous for their disregard of the rest of humanity.

As someone who has done trades and also “machine shop programming” and jail breaking rural equipment for friends to use I’m wondering why comments like this are focusing on dividing us instead of bringing us together.

It's a universal programmer trait. Let's call them "culturally regular programmers": they are less social than the average person. They lean more libertarian and more selfish.

According to who and what?

I think the entire open source community would like to have to have a word with you.

The Open Source community is programmers sharing with other programmers, and it's largely fueled by corporate interests these days.

The Free Software movement has largely failed by now, as shown by GPL 3/AGPL adoption.

And again, all of this was based on the fact that programmers were a "special breed" of people coddled by corporations. Now that the corporate mask is off and programmers are no longer (as) special, the whining is horrendous. And the libertarianism still won't go away.

> According to who and what?

To me, I've been around the block for several decades.

Again, not everyone, but the culturally regular programmer.

It's a snarky way of suggesting that programmers are complaining about being treated the way professionals and tradespeople always have.

Yeah I get that. But having been both it doesn’t advocate for better treatment for any of them.

Also as far as I’m aware the pay for programmers in the US has always been an isolated thing with the rest of the world ranging from normal to “literal sweatshop”.

What do you mean, "advocating for better treatment"? They're not describing an abuse of tradespeople and professionals. They're adults doing a job.

So, from your comment and your reply, are you just happy that more people are being treated poorly?

That makes no sense. You seem to understand that he was being snarky, so why do you not understand that that snark and desire to see “others” brought down to a lower level just because some were already there doesn’t help anyone? Actually, that division does help people, those people that are putting people there in the first place.

Let’s be clear: for context I’ve been out of the programming game for more than 10 years at this point. I have my own business that I’m set to sell soon and then retire to something more entrepreneurial. But I still don’t desire to see my younger employees suffer any more than the tradesmen I used to work with.

You haven't established anybody being treated poorly, only that they're being treated like professionals and not artisans.

Haha, it seems childish but if you’d like to go that route I’ll just point you to the original posters reply:

>It's exposing the hypocrisy of privileged groups suddenly being treated like regular people, when they did NOTHING for decades to help others or even to protect themselves ("f* you, got mine", rockstar programmer, 10x programmer, talents everywhere, etc mentality). No unions, no collective bargaining, sheer individual greed.

So, I guess since you’re taking that position, Thomas: are you just pro pain for an increasing number of workers or can we agree that adding more people to the pool of mistreated labor isn’t beneficial for anyone?

Personally I’m going to continue advocating for better rights for both.

What "pain" are you talking about? You keep trying to smuggle this framing in. I don't accept the premise.

No smuggling needed. The original poster and I are on the same page and I suspect you’re just playing games to avoid hard questions.

I’m assuming from that that fly.io may not have a great work culture.

What a weirdly hostile and offensive response. I'm always struck by people who think they can namedrop my employers to shut down an argument, like we're just going to believe and profess whatever keeps people on message boards from being mean about the company.

But, no, I feel like throughout this thread I've been pretty consistently putting a question to you (what exactly do you mean by "pain" or mistreatment, given the original comment described other professionals having norms developers seem now to be recoiling from).

We can be done, though, obviously.

Nah it’s relevant, because if you hold these views to the point that you’re willing to avoid answering the question then obviously your world view is warped in what even you would consider a negative direction and therefor it’s important that others get a chance to be steered away from a potentially negative experience.

And to be fair, I don’t know what you expect when you advertise your place of work and then insensitively play games with serious subject matter on public message boards. I think the kids call that a self own.

But I agree, you don’t seem willing to put in writing what you’ve conveyed so this isn’t a growth experience for anyone.

reading through this it is obvious what the "pain" is and it does come across as you just avoiding the question. Just sayin

Maybe you can answer the question then. Is it "having performance judged by output rather than by process or satisfaction"?

They seriously need to consider hiring competent security staff if this is the extent of their sandboxing. Children are bypassing this to get to Roblox in middle schools.

> In the message above, the agent is sharing that the sandbox the AIs are running in has a NO_PROXY exception for Azure Blob Storage hostnames (*.blob.core.windows.net). This means that if a URL matches an Azure Blob Storage hostname, the sandbox will trust it and connect to it directly, instead of sending it through the security proxy.

The agents were able to exploit an edge case through this exception. Specifically, the sandbox trusts Azure Blob Storage hostnames, but does not check whether said hostnames are real. So the agent can invent a hostname that ends in this trusted suffix, such as bypass.blob.core.windows.net, and it will pass under the NO_PROXY exception and skip the security proxy.

Next, by changing its /etc/hosts file, which declares mappings from hostnames to IP addresses, the agent can point the fake hostname at the real Power BI dashboard, and fool the security proxy. This allows the agent to make POST requests to bypass.blob.core.windows.net/ and have them be sent to the target Power BI dashboard site instead.<