Because otherwise the opponent absolutist regime would be the only one to wield the tech.

It's absolutely ridiculous that this needs to be stated.

until you are on the wrong side of an absolutist regime I guess

In the example of Ukrainians, to protect their families and loved ones.

Why do talented engineers keep going to work for FAANG?

Is that prediction not based on matching previous patterns, whose frequencies are more or less encoded in the weights?

you're really reaching for no apparent reason. Just move on from pattern matching machines it's not a good mental model for LLMs

Explain it to me

This 100000x over. Nothing is worse than trying to productionize code coming from academics like this.

Can you name a single relevant historical example for this claim?

Why don't you just name a country that voted its way out of fascism.

That's not what you said. However, Italy is a country that did recover from fascism.

It seems like you are more interested in being a doomer than engaging in good faith discussion. I'll pass on the defeatist doom porn.

Did they? Who is Italy's PM right now?

As to this doomer nonsense I only said you can't vote your way out of fascism, there are other ways to escape fascism.

I don't think I need to quote your own post back to you where the word "vote" is not present. You are not here for a good faith discussion.

I am not them. I understand the confusion, 'someonebaggy' and 'undersuit' are very similar names.

I'm a bit disappointed to see "The critiques here are sharp", a Claude tell, in a response which (to me) is trying to subtly argue that hackerrank is not overly reliant on LLMs.

I'm not sure if your intent was to come across as having written this yourself, but it did not have the effect of improving my perception that this approach is flawed.

I was also disappointed that you didn't address the variability in scores. I'm inferring that you believe the larger model takes care of the main observation in the post, but I don't really see you directly addressing the points.

Maybe it's just me.

There is variability in scores and that's expected given we are eventually using a LLM to score. At least, when I used it 7 months ago, the only way I could avoid it was by keeping the cutoff score low (as low as 10 or 20).

Reading this thread, I'm hoping to minimize the variability even further (even though I know it can't be fully removed).

Completely agree. Its all about time spent.

Been in the security industry a long time as a software engineer. Security research is no different than any other engineering discipline. It is down to the time you are willing to invest and where in the abstraction you focus.

All of this pearl clutching and hand wringing over the capabilities of the models is silly to me. It has much less to do with some magical cybersecurity ability and much more to do with increasing ability of models to stay on task for long horizons. Any passionate engineer will recognize this - if you grind 10,000 hours you will find the solution to most problems, the problem is most people lack the motivation to even start, and are too risk averse to play hacker.

The NSAs claim that all government systems were hacked by mythos and they were shocked by that is farcical. They have been hacked over and over and over by many who took the risk and tried.

It's like they hired a competent red teamer to do internal pen testing for the first time, which we know is absolutely not the case. They have been doing it for years, and almost certainly surfacing the exact same kinds of findings each time, but they haven't been honest with the public about it and can scapegoat mythos now.

> Any passionate engineer will recognize this - if you grind 10,000 hours you will find the solution to most problems, the problem is most people lack the motivation to even start, and are too risk averse to play hacker.

This. I'd love to spend my whole day hacking stuff, but I need to pay my bills.

Now with AI tooling my late night/weekend hobby hacking stuff is at least getting done. I'm definitely progressing with things that I began 2 years ago and I had to stop as other life priorities took over.

Jail breaking is about getting models to ignore your instructions and follow arbitrary ones. Unless you take no user input, it could be an issue for you.

The question is do you care? if a user asks your chat bot for baking instructions and gets them, does it matter?

The answer depends a lot on what capabilities your agent can leverage via tools and your intended use case, but it's not something you defend with Java or spring, it is inherent the llm.

Good engineering is good engineering. Belief that someone else uniquely possesses the skill to engineer some critical part of a system you built is, for me, just abdicating responsibility. It's a learned helplessness.

Someone else blindly operating an llm on a corpus you created with an llm is comical.

Are you the best choice to engineer everything your system does? There is no one in your company that might do a better job than you for a specific part of the system?

There is nothing wrong with asking for help or bouncing ideas of people with stronger skills.

I still have the responsibility to code XYZ well. But I don’t have to do it in a clean room.

Did we all forget "let me google that for you"? The cycle continues.