https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sd26pWhfmg

https://securitycryptographywhatever.com/2026/03/25/ai-bug-f...

It pretty much is just "Claude find me an exploitable 0-day" in a loop.

It was a quote from your own link from the initial post?

https://www.freebsd.org/security/advisories/FreeBSD-SA-26:08...

> Credits: Nicholas Carlini using Claude, Anthropic

The numbers OpenAI gave in the post would mean a 30x multiple pre-money. And the $20B -> $24B run-rate growth since the start of the year could plausibly mean anything from 110% to 200% annualized growth rate, depending on whether that happened over two or three months. The $24B is a lower bound as well, since they only gave use one significant digit for the monthly revenue.

It's going to be pretty hard to get a good answer to whatever you're having difficulties understanding if you can't be bothered to write more than a word.

Their causal explanation relies on two additional observations that seem pretty hard to explain by other theories: the effect disappears for single-parent and carless households.

Once the ability of the supply chain to grow has been saturated, no amount of extra confidence will make it grow faster.

There is one supplier of EUV lithography machines in the world, ASML. They are basically acting as an integrator for hundreds of highly specialized components manufactured to unimaginable levels of precision. Each of them has roughly one eligible supplier in the world who are operating at full capacity. To expand, they'll need yet another set of specialized and almost impossible to build equipment.

So the supply chain moves incredibly slowly, and the slowness is intrinsic due to the complexity and depth of the supply chain. It can't be fixed with just money. IIRC ASML is aiming to merely double their production of EUV lithography machines by 2030.

(You might object that KitKats usually weigh 40g. So these were probably the new KitKat Icon F1 chocolates, which weigh exactly 29g.)

Also the ship is not explained at all (the graphics, the controls, the systems). I'd recommend at least a one paragraph help section in the menu.

So your quip is just nonsensical.

I've been pretty wary about flagging AI slop that wasn't breaking other guidelines, and by default this will probably make me do it more. But it is a lot harder to be certain about something being AI-written than it is to judge other types of rules violations.

(But am definitely flagging every single "this was written by AI" joke comment posted on this story. What the hell is wrong with you people?)

The METR time-horizon benchmark shows steady exponential growth. The frontier lab revenue has been growing exponentially from basically the moment they had any revenues. (The latter has confounding factors. For example it doesn't just depend on the quality of the model but on the quality of the apps and products using the model. But the model quality is still the main component, the products seem to pop into existence the moment the necessary model capabilities exist.)

If you think that LLMs are sufficient and RSI is imminent (<1 year), this is horrible for Europe. It is a distracting boondoggle exactly at the wrong time.

The article is crystal clear that these uses are not permitted by the current or any past contract, and the DoW wants to remove those exceptions.

> Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War, and we believe they should not be included now

It also links to DoW's official memo from January 9th that confirms that DoW is changing their contract language going forwards to remove restrictions. A pretty clear indication that the current language has some.

It's the other way around, software improvements make the hardware more valuable. Let's say that one unit of compute can generate one unit of value. As the software improves on any of the principal axes (cheaper cost for same quality, or new capabilities that you could previously not get for any price), that same unit of compute will produce more value.

What would threaten those compute investments? Basically order of magnitude improvements in the hardware, but that kind of thing will take longer to happen than the projected lifetime of the hardware. (Or the demand for AI evaporating, but that tends to be an issue of faith that is hard to have a useful discussion on.)

This is what is special about them:

> a set of ten math questions which have arisen naturally in the research process of the authors. The questions had not been shared publicly until now;

I.e. these are problems of some practical interest, not just performative/competitive maths.

And this is what is know about the solutions:

> the answers are known to the authors of the questions but will remain encrypted for a short time.

I.e. a solution is known, but is guaranteed to not be in the training set for any AI.