"IC work" seems to have evolved at Coinbase to mean "supervise AI changes". Then the question becomes how will managers actually review these changes and not just press accept at 3:50.
I'm surprised at how little the perception of GitHub changed post-acquisition. Coupled with WSL, it almost balanced things for a lot of people and put Microsoft back in the "benefit of the doubt" column. This is undoing a lot of that, on top of the operational costs. Suddenly the bad press is more noticeable and harder to ignore.
I think it's like some kind of collective inferiority complex. Nobody really understands things anymore but everyone is afraid to point out mistakes of others because they are scared to come under scrutiny themselves then.
I think the default position people like to take generally is to just go with the status quo. GitHub has reached status quo level. As in "nobody ever got fired for choosing GitHub". It's the only forge I've seen advertisements for in the meatspace, and even non-technical people know about it. On job applications, companies ask for my GitHub URL. I think it'll be awhile now before they get abandoned. That said, I recently started moving my stuff over to Codeberg. The change needs to start with us, the people writing software.
Why is it easier to submit a bug report if my bug reporting system is run by the same company as your code repository? Why are those things even slightly related?
Because users and community contributors most likely already have an account, are familiar with the UI.
There is also the "gamification" aspect that GitHub have. Doesn't motivate me personally, but could have effect on some others.
Projects on GitHub gets a lot more visibility.
To the point that many projects that do not use GitHub as their main forge are still often mirroring their repository there, and have to deal with double source of bug reports or pr.
The thing about an SLA is that once you’ve broken it you’ve lost the trust. It doesn’t _really_ matter what the cost is for breaking it, nobody chooses their platform based on the refund they’ll get if they’re down. But they absolutely do choose based on reliability and uptime. The enterprise SLA refund credit will show as a (big) metering blip, but the problem is the people who signed the contracts are going to be speaking to Gitlab now
My thinking is that if there would be more money in releasing Mythos and Cyber than there is in just scary unverifiable (or verified using very favorable context - Mythos) propaganda, they would. These aren't people that go for second best or care about the state of the world.
I've never seen this explicitly stated, but I assume they also want to show due diligence in case their models are used to write successful exploits that lead to major cyberattacks. Given the current WH's ire towards Anthropic, I could see the current DOJ trying to file criminal charges for aiding/abetting/export-violations/etc.
> These aren't people that go for second best or care about the state of the world
My suspicion is an adult in the room realised that simultaneously pissing off every major corporation, government and NGO, and giving them an incentive to bottle you up immediately, could backfire massively.
That an inference for Mythos is probably beyond what Anthropic can provide at scale right now.
The problem in most of those cases is not specifically AI. Many of the issues you cited are related to Anthropic specifically and many could have been avoided with better testing.
Yes, I am assuming the AI/LLM of choice you've implemented in your software engineering org is Claude because as far as I can tell there aren't really alternatives that come close to its quality in software.
If you've worked with Azure you don't need to be explained what the problem is. I'll believe that workloads are different now than they were some years ago but... they literally are the cause for it so no sympathy from me there.
reply