Mastodon Feed: Posts

jwz wrote:

A major plot point of *Superman* was that Clark got a garbled answering machine message and didn't realize his parents were Space Nazis who wanted him to take over and eugenics-fuck his way to a new super-race (the plot of *Invincible* and also the plot of Elon Musk). But at the end Supergirl shows up, who left Krypton as a teenager. So couldn't the little blonde übermensch have just... *told* him about her time in the Krypton Youth and at Ku Klux Krypton rallies?
https://jwz.org/b/yk5i

Boosted by adam@social.lol ("Adam"):
neatnik@social.lol ("Neatnik") wrote:

RE: https://social.lol/@neatnik/116328001566273692

There are just a few slots left! :prami_distressed:

denschub@schub.social ("Dennis Schubert") wrote:

time to seize the means of computing?

Boosted by jwz:
malwarejake@infosec.exchange ("Jake Williams") wrote:

ICE was checking IDs at the Atlanta airport today. The.guy said "your DL photo is super light, so facial recognition might not work."

I snapped back "that's so you know not to illegally deport me."

His buddy said "we can find a reason" and NOTHING could be more on-brand for an encounter with ICE.

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

@aredridel I am taking "measuring your guardrails" to be an empirical ongoing thing, the sort of dashboards and metrics where the sort of infohazard of repetitive plausible-but-bad code would show up, the sort of thing that would be structurally resistant to informal analysis

Boosted by aredridel@kolektiva.social ("Mx. Aria Stewart"):
jackwilliambell@rustedneuron.com ("Jack William Bell") wrote:

@pictureman @Strandjunker

One side of my family has been in the Americas since the 1600s. That side also has native American blood two generations back. IOW? I can trace back my heritage to before the USA existed, in multiple ways.

I say that to say this: I am in favor of easy immigration and citizenship of people's from anywhere. I reject the unstated racism of the anti-immigration crowd – most of whom would not be citizens if their ancestors had come here under the rules they want.

Boosted by jwz:
johl@mastodon.xyz ("Jens Ohlig") wrote:

„By Wednesday morning, Anthropic representatives had used a copyright takedown request to force the removal of more than 8,000 copies and adaptations of the raw Claude Code instructions—known as source code—that developers had shared on programming platform GitHub.“

Because if there’s one thing GenAI companies absolutely don’t take lightly, it’s copyright.

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-races-to-contain-leak-of-code-behind-claude-ai-agent-4bc5acc7

aredridel@kolektiva.social ("Mx. Aria Stewart") wrote:

@glyph You just said you don't measure your guardrails!

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

@aredridel and… I do? I may be unfairly assuming you know anything about my previous body of work but I assure you I do a lot of that sort of thing

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

@aredridel like, "unreleased product info" is _one_ of the things here, but the prompt is quite explicit about being deceptive about being an AI tool at all.

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

@aredridel In the prompt under discussion here, "generated with claude code" is included in the list of things not to include, which is not an unreleased product name.

aredridel@kolektiva.social ("Mx. Aria Stewart") wrote:

@glyph So what's going on in Claude (which fwiw I do not use) is a lot of "don't expose unreleased product info”

Not _great_ mind you but that's a lot of the context for what's going on there.

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

has anybody heard from @davidgerard today? i'm really worried he might have laughed his ass off on the floor rolling to death.

aredridel@kolektiva.social ("Mx. Aria Stewart") wrote:

@glyph I measure, if informally, how often we have problems, and we talk about mitigations.

You can, in fact, check.

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

@aredridel Treating LLMs differently here is not a double standard, it's just a standard. They're new, they're different, but most of all, if labeling weren't a big deal *why try to hide it in the first place*?

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

@aredridel

> Are you measuring your guardrails?

Of course not. Nobody is. The resources do not exist in the software industry, let alone in volunteer open source, to do this adequately. Which is why we rely on good faith.

> do you require any unsafe practice to be labeled? Or just LLMs?

Just LLMs. First, because LLMs are novel and unique.

Second, here we're not even talking about a labeling *requirement* yet, we're talking about *active deception*.

Boosted by jwz:
fasterandworse@hci.social ("Stephen Farrugia") wrote:

@misty also note that Apple have dark-patterned this update below the fold that doesn't appear to be there

Attachments:

• video: video screen recording of ios software update screen showing a full height update for IOS 26 and a non-obvious extra scroll reveals an "also available" update for the ios 18.7.7 security update

aredridel@kolektiva.social ("Mx. Aria Stewart") wrote:

@glyph Right. Are you measuring your guardrails?

And: do you require any unsafe practice to be labeled? Or just LLMs?

That's the thing. My fundamental argument here is that _these are tools_. Sometimes that's relevant, sometimes that's not.

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

@aredridel This is the same logic as "if you don't want to have segfaults in your C code, just check more carefully. why did you put the bugs in, if you don't want bugs?"

No process is perfect, nothing can catch everything. Guard rails are important but you aren't supposed to start *driving on the guard rails* all the time. Step zero here is honest and accurate labeling of one's methods. Which is what this thread is about: inherent, structural, software-supported dishonesty

aredridel@kolektiva.social ("Mx. Aria Stewart") wrote:

@glyph Right. So _if the PR is bad, reject it_.

If it's not, don't.

And if you didn't check WHY NOT?

aredridel@kolektiva.social ("Mx. Aria Stewart") wrote:

@glyph Yep. _but relying on implicit things is tricky_. Acknowledging it explicitly is a start, but now we need to look at the system.

aredridel@kolektiva.social ("Mx. Aria Stewart") wrote:

@glyph Yes, though I disagree with parts of it: it's changed the system and now we're dealing with the bottlenecks appearing in new places. Not always good ones!

But I don't think this is a change in kind. It's moved the problem in _really familiar_ ways to me, actually. It's what happens when you unleash people on a codebase who don't care for others, who offload work. You can rein that in, but you need feedback in the system to do it.

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

@aredridel The human being sitting there typing the code out with their fingers was an *implied* initial check on the process—arguably the largest one by far—which you've now thrown out in favor of someone hitting '1 1 1 1 2' in a Claude Code loop, putting a _far_ more load-bearing role onto the existing CI and the code reviewer. More importantly, in this context, it has been thrown out *implicitly* by an Anthropic employee testing a *beta* version of the model

baldur@toot.cafe ("Baldur Bjarnason") wrote:

RE: https://toot.cafe/@baldur/116330178975566449

I'm doing both a sale and an experiment.

Boosted by jwz:
straphanger@urbanists.social ("𝚃𝚊𝚛𝚊𝚜 𝙶𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚌𝚘𝚎 🚇") wrote:

"I hope gas goes up to eight bucks a gallon!"

It's 2026, and I've turned into Calvin's Dad.

There are worse fates, I guess...

Boosted by soatok@furry.engineer ("Soatok Dreamseeker"):
philpem@digipres.club ("Phil M0OFX") wrote:

@realtegan @soatok The optimist in me wants to say the thought probably hadn't occurred to them. The cynical bit says they don't want to have the CEO in their face about raising awareness of what happens at the sales conference...

Boosted by soatok@furry.engineer ("Soatok Dreamseeker"):
ariarhythmic@ohai.social ("Aria <3 :blobcattrans:") wrote:

@erincandescent @notthatdelta @soatok @FurryBeta It's a fucking job what the fuck

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

@aredridel Here we have an established "engineering" process, i.e. code review and continuous integration, designed for catching defects and process failures from a good-faith production of code from humans with an understanding of the system under development. That process is then subjected to a new type of code generation, where a machine that *maximizes plausibility while minimizing effort*, is throwing much larger volumes of code against the same mechanism. That's not the same process!

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

@aredridel There are scales where differences in degree _become_ differences in kind.

Consider a more closely related phenomenon. There are many tools to check C/C++ code for memory safety errors. And, unsafe Rust code may exhibit exactly the same unsafe behaviors. Yet, C/C++ code and Rust code are categorically different in terms of the level of memory safety one may expect them to provide.

aredridel@kolektiva.social ("Mx. Aria Stewart") wrote:

@glyph I'm specifically arguing that it's the _exact same phenomenon writ larger_ (which is a meaningful difference!)

But it's a difference in amount not kind.

Either you build processes to check things ("do engineering") or you don't (“vibes”)