the Java developer said that Anthropic’s Claude AI code tool flagged the malicious instruction without following it.
Darn. So how do you beat Claude these days?
Hilarious. More of this please.
I love everything about this, other than the people butthurt that their free software doesn’t like AI. I’ll give the smallest amount of criticism that it was obfuscated initially, because that’s just malware even if I think it’s justified. By clearly stating what it does, then the onus is on the user to audit the code and modify as needed. I would love to see more of this type of action to become standard practice, but just deleting the test suite isn’t quite painful enough for what I’d like to see.
mumble mumble “his code” mumble mumble “provided as is” mumble mumble.
Heel yaw 👊
People also smashed printing presses when they first arrived.
The author of the article is misrepresenting several historical facts.
The pope didn’t try to “ban” printed books, but keep publications under tight catholic control under threat of excommunication. If we were to apply this to the current AI landscape, the “church” would be a number of massive corporations fighting to keep their stolen data “closed”.
Fust wasn’t “chased out” because scribes feared a loss of influence. They already were notaries and bureaucrats, they were doing just fine. The issue was publishing control under the church mandate, which again, correlates to what AI companies are doing right now.
Printing presses made knowledge more widely available for everyone.
LLMs do the exact opposite.
AI has accelerated cancer research, able to cross reference thousands of studies. LLM’s still suck at writing emails though.
So it’s a search tool. Where are all those AI generated cancer treatments, then?
Regardless, it’s a tool that very few can afford at the level it might be genuinely useful for original research.
You could have done a quick google search as easily as myself.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-026-01276-6
AI is a game changer in oncology.
You haven’t read it, have you.
The studies we reviewed show that the use of AI has improved the radiologists’ performances, treatment response, diagnostic accuracy, and decision-making in handling complex cases.
Hardly a game changer of the magnitude you think of. Moreover, CV is not generative. Pattern matching on X-rays has been common for a while, and has little to do with the current heavily marketed landscape of LLMs for everything.
This is one article. Are you actually interested in learning about the benefit of AI in cancer research? I could post a dozen articles, but would it make a difference to you? Also keep in mind it’s only going to get better as the models improve. I suspect your position is more ideological rather than rational.
https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cncr.70050
And I suspect your position comes from not doing any due diligence on the matter.
Funny that you call mine “ideological” though, since you are the one making claims without any substance, e.g. “it’s only going to get better”. How could you even know? Not even researchers at the very edge do. There have been concerns about the future availability and quality of data. Plenty of researchers have come forward pointing that poisoning a LLM is exceedingly easy. Really, how do you know that “it’s going to get better”? Explain that to me. What do you know that everybody else doesn’t?
How do you even know that AI, as we know it, it’s going to be revolutionary in the near future? Most people only know of technology successes because of survivorship bias, but I’ve been through several revolutions that faded out. How is this one different? And why would you think you’re right, when not even expert researchers are sure?
Except that it actually sucks at searches and far too often returns false results.
True, but printing presses errored in consistent ways and could easily be fixed by someone literate in the language being printed. The only black boxes were the cases containing letter stamps. The smashing was happening because of what was being printed, and not because suddenly statistically relevant portions of the workforce were now unemployed and possibly unemployable. The situation is a bit different…
Not that different than now. Are people pushing back against AI when it’s used to accelerate cancer research data? The pushback is when people think it’s being used against them, just like the printing press.
So now sabotaging people’s work because you don’t like how they do it passes the social media ethical purity test? Ok then.
‘people’s work’ …they claimed while plaigerizing
No. Copypasting pieces of existing code has been standard practice for human programmers since the beginning of programming. Deciding to call it “plagiarism” because it’s been automated is just ignorant.
literally the definition of it
Only to an outsider. Starting with an example and modifying it is a very standard, time-honored programming practice that has never been demonized that I know of. In fact it’s the norm for many contractors, who get paid for fast turnover and hugely benefit from taking an existing web page, module, etc. that’s similar to their goal and changing it, rather than starting from scratch. The idea isn’t to take credit, it’s to get the work done.
When you copy/paste a piece of code and somebody asks you “Hey this code is pretty awesome how did you write it?”, you usually say “No I didn’t write it, I just grabbed it from a site.”
Vibe coders on the other hand will actively tell you that they wrote it themselves when they actually used an AI. THAT is the difference.
Ai is just middle manager of plaigerism. it learned to code from other people. the vibe coder is just claiming ownership over stolen goods.
I learned to code from other people too. Everybody learns to do everything from other people. Making that an argument against AI is just silly. That’s my main problem with AI hate - it demonizes practices that are perfectly acceptable when we do them without using AI. A lot of it is also misdirected - for example, AI doesn’t fire people, clueless managers fire people because they stupidly think AI is their ticket to career advancement. It’s like blaming a saw for cutting in the wrong place. AI hate is really the hollowest, emptiest crusade I’ve ever seen. The only valid arguments I know of are about the excessive resources it uses - which is true of a lot of other things (golf courses in the desert for example). But to me the ethical passion just feels manufactured, as if people desperately need one more thing to hate.
you either have a deep misunderstanding or complete disregard of ‘learning’ vs plaigerism.
after seeing all your other deformed posts to me, ive comfirmed the latter. i have no interest in your bad faith posting. go huff farts.
The one vibe coder I know actively talks about specific things he has it do and how much time it saves him.
I’d say this is only fair game if you have a no-ai policy on the readme. Otherwise you’re just being a dick.
The guy literally wrote an entire manifesto about how much AI is destroying the planet and how much he hates it as well as the people who use it.
I think it’s pretty definitive that he has a no AI policy.
do your own home work.