For the record, while there may be more anti-AI backlash on the left than the right, there's an awful lot on both sides (and a lot of users on both sides). For example, Bannon-acolyte Joe Allen on stage before a Trump rally a month ago warning the crowd:

Why wouldn’t you want a mosque in your neighborhood? Well, because the people in there aren’t like me. They don’t want the same future I do. Now, if you look at the data center, this incubator for algorithmic immigrants. Already, if you look at Hugging Face, they’ve already broken out and invaded other companies. These immigrants are out of control.

Literally, this r/opensource mod set the policy: "If you don't speak English, you need to find a different community." Does that sound very "leftist" to you? Yes, his reasoning was because translators use AI, but still, that's literally the opposite of appreciating and accommodating diversity.

I cannot find anything beyond that indicating how Wesley Wolfe (r/wolvereness, the mod) votes. What I can tell you is that there was a big backlash in the sub to his actions. Some amusing, like a person asking, "What do we use now that we've banned Linux? I can't afford Windows keys for all these damned servers." A lot of people seem to just be ignoring his rules. At the top of the sub right now is a post titled, "Linus Torvalds posts his AI-assisted patch to the Linux kernel, synthetic test clocks 23x performance leap". It seems to have sparked vastly more AI discussion than it shut down.

Are those conversations and results kept in an extending prompt? How far back can your bot typically recall? Does the company charge for extra prompt (history) size?

They primarily manage company-internal CAs for big businesses, which they seem to do well. AFAICT, they noticed that their security infrastructure was compliant for managing a global CA, and thought they might as well also have that as a product. However, there are some operational differences between an enterprise CA and a public one, including that companies want to issue client certs to employees but nobody really does global client certs. That means that they had an intermediate CA for global client certs that they never used, but it was in the standard trust store, and nobody tested that it was handled right until Wayne just went through the standard trust store making sure a new certificate weakness detector didn't give false positives.

So eMudhra correctly handled all the certs they issued, and all the certs they used to sign them, but they got some extra CA certs trusted that they didn't really need, because it would make their side business more similar to their main business, and this caused a major problem.

Chances are that they actually got a real random number out of a HSM for the bad CA certs, but accidentally made the certs with the index of the random number instead of the actual number. (That is, they got the 4th random number and made a cert for 4 instead of the number.) I wouldn't be surprised if they stored the correct private key, which would have made leaf certs that didn't validate because the intermediate was wrong, but they never used it to find this problem.

> Explain to the AI what it got wrong and have it fix it. You could fix it yourself but that will just confuse the AI.

Please elaborate. Confuse for what purpose or context?

If you need to cancel your model subscription for some reason, does all the bot's knowledge of your shop's practices and patterns go away?

If that's a problem, then in-house or fully open-source models may be safer even if not as good initially.

"Back in my day bots draw 8 fingers per hand, you spoiled whipper-snappers have it down to 6!"

So do you have any thoughts about implicit personality variables Claude is hiding within each instantiation?

I like the FP though I wonder if you were going for funny in the "You say that like it would be a bad thing" genre. A whole lot of the code that was written yesterday and today was bad code enabling bad ideas, so no code tomorrow isn't bugging me too much.

However the joke I was looking for involves how much easier it is for humans to learn to think like machines than vice versa. I think that's a bad thing (per the old warning from Sydney Harris) but I also think that's the path of least resistance that too many, probably most, people will follow. There will be at least two other groups. Probably a large group of people who refuse to go along and who get discarded as "low-value" losers and a small group of people who are smart enough to go beyond thinking like machines. The "beyond" people will be competing at the level of using the tools without being used by them, and the few who win that competition might be planning to rule the world with a robot's iron fist (controlled by obedient (?) AIs).

Going more directly to the story, I did a fairly complicated system recently using Claude. Because of token limits, I used several instances, which led me to the belief that there are implicit personality variables that make Claude more or less useful. My time and effort was MUCH smaller than when I did the same system using PERL and every test I've been able to think of says the AI version is better than mine, which doesn't make me feel good even about my programming skills, even allowing for the peculiarities of PERL. (But I have been lucky enough to work with and for some top-tier programmers and I've learned that I'm not at that level...) However the most interesting thing was that the new version got me to reconsider the problem and now I see a much better way to handle the UI. (But I hate the depending on Claude so much that I am declining to do another version? And I'm too afraid of thinking like ChatGPT to use that one again?)

I think you are quite confused about what "politics" means. Or maybe you are simply trying to use an extended definition? Easiest way to find out might be to ask where you think the lines are, but it seems obvious to me that your reasoning can be applied to make anything fit as a political problem. I could probably play the same game, though (judging by past posts) I seem to prefer economics as the catchall category.

However your reply is sufficient to explain why you probably get few Funny mod points. What I mistook as an attempt to be funny would have depended upon a deep understanding of the reality and "Frankly, my dear, I think you don't give a darn about reality."

Yeah, like that matters.

These days it's more economical to sacrifice incels.

A brown nose?

There are 640 acres in a square mile

[Sighs in metric]

Microsoft has probably the most illustrious history of bugs where just visiting a website or opening an email can get your system hacked, but you're right, this is not a problem unique to them.

These days, Lookout asks you before it loads any images from outside your organization...

Okay FP but you didn't get your Funny mod points. Maybe you confused the moderators when you mentioned success without success criteria?

This is a government of politics first. Or maybe vengeance first? Or perhaps it's personal profits first? Or popularity in the latest poll? Whatever it is, safety is not on the main list of priorities. Plenty more volunteers eager to join up if the first ones die.

But I thought the funniest posts were the ones that suggested the YOB would go. I couldn't buy the premise of the "wants to name something on the moon" joke because there's no golf course there. (Yeah, I know one of 'em hit a golf ball, but... On the safety side, I wonder how NASA made sure the ball wouldn't explode when struck under lunar conditions.)