> I doubt they're being misleading or even overly grandiose here

I think I agree.

We could definitely do much worse than Anthropic in terms of companies who can influence how these things develop.

I would like to think that I would, yes.

What it comes down to, for me, is that lately I have been finding that when Anthropic publishes something like this article – another recent example is the AI and emotions one – if I ask the question, does this make their product look exceptionally good, especially to a casual observer just scanning the headlines or the summary, the answer is usually yes.

This feels especially true if the article tries to downplay that fact (they’re not _real_ emotions!) or is overall neutral to negative about AI in general, like this Glasswing one (AI can be a security threat!).

> AI models have reached a level of coding capability where they can surpass all but the most skilled humans at finding and exploiting software vulnerabilities

I like Anthropic, but these are becoming increasingly transparent attempts to inflate the perceived capability of their products.

I more meant the idea of using different fonts in the same buffer to represent different kinds of text.

https://input.djr.com/

A bit weird to not mention that.

Unfortunately until editors start supporting this (and I’m not sure what would motivate them to), these remain great ideas only.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41720666

Points: 2

# Comments: 3