Incentive is for users in general to release sessions (sans PII, credentials) so all AI get better and there is alternatives. Even if China didn't do this, I don't see frontier labs being able to charge premium over others for long. RSI maybe?
> In addition to safety training, automated classifier-based monitors detect signals of suspicious cyber activity and route high-risk traffic to a less cyber-capable model (GPT-5.2).
He seems to be saying that Claude Code can make discoveries. Does anyone think novel discoveries can be made from systems created by supervised learning only, and attempting to do so?
> Claude-Code, which have brought true advances in ... programming. ... these systems have found things that are both novel and good.
Yet the Eternal September is what made the modern AI possible. I asked Cowork for share of the corpus before / after the event, and the corpus before it is <1%, which fits my hunch.
Many things, such as ksmbd seems ill-advised when looked at from security. New AI driven exploits
era will likely make projects more wary to adding functions.
Copilot was there in AI based development first with tab completions.
Now, it may be the right call to immediately give up and shutdown after Opus 4.5, but models and subscriptions are in flux right now, so the right call is not at all obvious to me.
The agentic AI models could be commoditized, some model may excel in one area of SWE, while others are good for another area, local models may be at least good enough for 80%, and cloud usage could fall to 20%, etc. etc.
Staying in the market and providing multi-model and harness options (Claude and Codex usable in Copilot) is good for the market, even if you don't use it.
AI should decide the level of model needed, and fallback if it fails.
It mostly is a UX problem. Why do I need to specify the level of model beforehand?
Many problems don't allow decision pre-implementation.
Thx.
In other comment, but setting Java options for proxy settings worked.
I was guessing annotations would be based on UI framework borders(which I can toggle on screen via debug menu), but looks it's based on image recognition locally. Maybe you can have UI component borders as option(haven't heavily used it yet, so throwing around ideas)
MS showing "view summary" button for all meetings, then doing bait-and-switch to tell you to buy Copilot license (on a corporate seat no less, where regular users don't have purchasing decision power) is top annoyance now
Taking screenshots, optionally with component borders highlighted, and operating the UI with element names like "button1" instead of tap 200,30 looks useful. If I could get it to work.
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.
> But once you go beyond that to less defined things such as code quality
I think they have a good optimization target with SWE-Bench-CI.
You are tested for continuous changes to a repository, spanning multiple years in the original repository. Cumulative edits needs to be kept maintainable and composable.
If there are something missing with the definition of "can be maintained for multiple years incorporating bugfixes and feature additions" for code quality, then more work is needed, but I think it's a good starting point.
I'm hoping Facebook will bring back API to access Groups. My family Photo is in it. I feeling trepidation because they failed to acquhire OpenClaw's author.