why not put that effort into improving stuff / finding solutions?

I'm saying other OSs are worse for sandboxing.

How would you achieve what you want on MacOS or Windows? (or others?), what do you think goes on behind the scenes?

I would set up a VM if i were that paranoid btw. Qemu, docker, deploy the container to it, vnc or gpu access.

Also, one question for you, since you brought up microphone, how do you defend from Microsoft/Google/Apple deciding to spy on you and access the microphone? (secret court order or who knows why in the future)

Permissions on microphone device would work, build your own UI / virtual device or generate one with claude if you really want popups.

> "would you like to let the program connect to github.com? (Yes) (No) (With decrypting SSL traffic)"."

I actually have something for this. Firewall everything blocked, domains unblocked via DNS request if I allow them.

Linux is very powerful here compared to iOS - can you block specific domains there?

> The best you can do today is either write your own sandbox around Linux namespaces (very complicated), or try lightweight VMs like Firecracker, or paravirtualization (like VM but with a shared kernel).

What do you think the sandbox on ios/android is?, still a vm/namespace/container...

> require lot of work and programming.

Sure, but you learn.

> I want to install random packages and still be safe. That's the point of installing an OS, to be able to run random programs on the computer.

That's not true anywhere. I would not feel safe with random apks or random store entries on android OR iOS. On iOS i lived through the whole 'access a webpage to get jailbreak' phase... with no way around it since mandatory safari

So, other OSs just give you the impression of safety. And you're locked. (iOS with safari...)

On Linux you are free, up to your capabilities.

Linux main feature is that you are free to do anything you want.

Linux does verify signatures for packages from official repos.

Linux has features like SELinux and AppArmor.

If you want to install a random package, you are free to do and its your responsibility. Equivalent is side loading in android.

On iOS Apple doesn't even let you have full Firefox... That is wrong. And yet, there have always been exploits.

It will be shrinking. Less grunt work.

Internal projects can get done with less of either.

Nobody really cares about great UX or about how great someone can implement a CRUD app.

So there will be less need/fighting over such resources.

If I can just generate a usable UI for a hobby project I don't need to find some company to build it out. Sure, it will miss out on a lot of stuff but it's a trade off.

If someone else can build a product and needed a basic web shop / crud app, they don't need to find someone to implement that at a massive overcharge.

has it done anything to prevent/mitigate this? or the opposite?

Obfuscated enough to pass internal reviews, sloppy enough to make it look like a bug.

Other reply makes it even more suspicious... change is new in a subsystem that hasnt been updated in a long tine and it's only present in recovery mode files.

Microsoft handle of this also screams it's not a regular bug and they're likely investigating or someone is trying to cover their ass.

What's even more troubling is that the fix would be a very simple/quick rollback of the change that introduced this... and that they haven't done that is interesting.

> but one person having direct experience of all these cases is unusual for a civilian

Sure, still, indirect stories I have a lot more, just stopped at those 6

It does look like an intentional backdoor. The way ms is responding to it is even more suspicious.

Pretty funny since this defeats security on most corporate laptops, so impact is huge. You'd expect them to treat the reporter better and fix the issue fast...

I'm curious why they put it in, I'm not sure I understand the 'to "manage" your computer' note.

Microsoft should have no reason to put something like this in. So either they were forced or they had some engineers that did this on their own without any oversight.

1. Immediately said 'Cancer' to stomach issues on an old person. They just didn't care, another doctor resolved that.

2. Eye doctors that would not investigate anything and just prescribe eye glasses and would recommend local companies that they owned or had a stake in.

3. Fake gynecologists that did C-Sections brutally without any experience

4. Fake plastic surgeons with no experience just going by word of mouth taking rich peoples money

5. Fertility doctors doing human egg-trafficking.

6. General doctors forcing appendectomy if under-18s came to the hospital with any stomach complains (they could not refuse, doctor got money for the surgery)

Sure, human body is complex. That wasn't my point.

So for the layperson, the AI output is still useful. They'll know to search for a different lawyer/doctor.

Tool just brings more knowledge to regular people.

It's like discovering search engine 20+ years ago.

> Try prompting Claude to fix an arbitrary code base better than someone who knows it, when you're a random non-technical person.

I've seen people employed working on some code bases that couldn't code at all.

> Try prompting Claude for legal advice and getting as good of results as Lawyer would if you're a layperson.

Some lawyers are downright incompetent and don't know what they're talking about / just want your money.

> Try prompting Claude for medical advice if you're not a doctor...

Some doctors are downright incompetent or malicious. You'd generally find that out by vising another doctor and finding previous diagnostic was bullshit and you lost time.

> AI is just going to speed run bringing out the best and worst in coworkers.

It does help people overall, the worst coworkers are probably going to still be there, just a bit better hidden.

The rest just have a new-age search engine to augment their capabilities.

> Different sections of the encyclical have very different rates of apparent AI usage. This indicates to me that some cardinals used AI assistance for this encyclical and many (probably including Pope Leo himself) don’t.

So... no, the Pope did not and was never in question...

The main post is a very poor article in the 'we're just asking questions' style with clickbait title.

I would even say main post is an AI generated summary

Same defenses that are used against fraud and other crime.

criminal prosecution of the blackmailers AND the services used to generate the pictures.

This is effectively child porn... so penalties would be pretty harsh.

There are extradition treaties to most of the world, so unless the blackmailers are in China/Russia they will end up in jail.

That same thing played out with piracy with people extradited to the US from various countries

In what world would that be needed or accepted.

It generally takes 1-2 days to fix harder issues lile race conditions/memory corruptions. Regular bugs are much faster. All fixed correctly without AI.

AI just goes on a random path every time and in general fails to find the root cause unless you tell it explicitly what it is...

> I was a skeptical until recently, but in the last few months of using Claude Code (and Copilot, but Copilot consistently performs worse), the LLM has become better than most humans IMO

great that it's working on your end

This is something I don't understand.

- If you have a bug, you need to fix it well as well as proper root cause.

- That way the bug never surfaces again and safeguards are added for that class of bugs.

- if done well over time it builds discipline and bugs only surface from new features or integrations.

I've never had an experience of a 'death spiral' that you mention.

> Still, when I need to figure out something, now, I often ask AI as it is absolutely wonderful in understanding and explaining code, no matter how big the code base is.

Sure, but you still dig into the code afterwards I assume, you don't blindly trust what the AI summarization tells you.

> If you think AI is at the level of a junior developer right now, I'm afraid you're kidding yourself.

It depends, small projects with well defined scope, yeah, it knocks them out of the park, what I'm working on, it's a bit disappointing, not for lack of trying.

Still, one other thing I'm noticing now... if my account were not anonymous I would likely need to think of possible repercussions for my 'lack of faith' and would probably post comments very similar to yours or not at all.

So I'll stop here.

Yes, with generous budgets.

> They're also very good at fixing bugs,

Seeing opposite here too, they are like eager juniors 'oh the issue is here and here's a 5 page report why', and it's wrong... then you add more info and it goes to a different spot... repeat until you get tired and solve it yourseld, it is useful as a rubber ducky i guess.

> I work on a pretty large project/code base, written mostly in Go, and I have pretty positive experience with LLMs. I take on fairly small chunks, I review and understand the changes.

Great that it's working for you, I'm just pointing out there's a massive disconnect.

I would assume your work can be done by a junior engineer without any prior knowledge (except LLM md files) with same quality but less speed?

If yes, then great, perhaps that's where the disconnect is, complexity.

Also, if yes, which would be cheaper?, junior engineer or LLM?

I have friends at other companies with similar projects, they say the same thing.

It's like we're living in different worlds.

Still, LLMs are nice for well defined small projects, microservices, tools and research.