(Is it given that there's a play? Waymo is culturally a little distinct from Google so from personal experience I can't actually rule out that they're just doing this coz they think it would be good for the world).
I suspect they are fielding complaints that autonomous vehicles increase road traffic, so they want to show that they are encouraging the use of public transit. Uber and Lyft have long been blamed for an increase in overall traffic.
I don't think it makes much sense to expect such a cohesive/specific philosophy from an open source project like this.
The goal is "Linux on Mac". In a commercial product, specific details of what gets built usually stem from a more detailed vision that can be articulated as one. In open source projects those details are determined by what individual contributors are motivated to work on.
That doesn't means a cohesive vision can't emerge, there might be one for Asahi actually. But I think the default position is that it's kinda just a mob of people doing what they each feel like doing.
I don't think it matters that Asashi is a generation or three behind, because the moment you really need it is when Apple stops updating the OS for your hardware.
When M1 drops out of support I bet Asashi for the M1 machines will be pretty polished.
Another thing is, the M1 and later hardware is still years later some of the best arm64 hardware youre going to find. Combine that with the really affordable prices you can find on the used market and Linux arm64 on this kind of great hardware at a low price is quite appealing.
I think LWN is not just the best linux news site or the best tech news site, or the best new site. I think it's actually the best website. I just can't think of anything else that comes close in terms of quality of information.
If you have any professional connection at all to Linux then $11/mo is an absolute bargain!
The Asahi folks have been making really impressive progress on Polishing Cloth drivers so I'm optimistic that we'll at least have a community solution for the E-waste in future decades.
I came to these comments coz I was curious about the AI usage here, and FWIW I also thought it smelled AI written, but I didn't think it was slop. (IMO not all AI output is slop and not all slop comes from AI).
My main question was "did Claude do the investigation by itself or just write up the article from someone's notes?"
Also though, I'm quite willing to believe this is human written and the human just happens to have a Claudey style. The actual prose isn't that Claudey it's just the structure of how it presents ideas. But, Claude had to get that structure from somewhere. It's not that surprising to see people with that style of communication.
Nope, I'm one of those lucky folks who was privileged enough to be accused of writing in a weird and probably too mature for my high school English paper-way before the advent of gpt, lol. I've had to all but remove the em-dash from my vernacular, thanks to the ~ plague of inauthenticity ~ as I call it.
I did all the digging, researching, writing, etc myself. The reason the screenshots are from mobile is because I wrote a lot of it literally in my notes app, on my phone before I started putting together more dots. I eventually asked gpt if I was correct in my understanding about refrigeration controllers doing XYZ and if it was plausible for them to be hacked in this way, when looking for some docs I asked if it would be standard to have XYZ part of a contract public and XYZ private, and other singular questions like that. I also use a browser extension for spellcheck that (I think) uses AI to suggest phrasing improvements, which I used pretty nominally.
Is there any type of sidebar/footnote that you, as a reader, would like to see to denote AI usage during the writing and/or research process? Would you expect none? I don't plan to do many investigations such as this (literally started because I was personally impacted) but I do have a few potential article seeds about defense procurement tech I've asked a few definition/research questions to AI about and would like to make sure I'm keeping tabs on it since this is something I want to be perhaps hyper aware of moving forward. Keeping in mind this is my personal substack and I would like to maintain integrity, but also, not doing really any groundbreaking work here. Intended to be an outlet for my thoughts, not news.
> Is there any type of sidebar/footnote that you, as a reader, would like to see to denote AI usage during the writing and/or research process?
It's not something I expect, but I definitely don't see an issue with people putting a couple of sentences in an "expand to see AI usage notes" tab at the top or bottom of the page.
> Would you expect none?
As in, would I expect no AI usage? Coz no I absolutely expect people to use AI.
If you had got Claude to do this investigation for you then actually I think that would have been notable enough to include details of your AI workflow. But not because "it's cheating not to disclose it", rather because you'd probably have come up with quite a neat workflow that is interesting in its own right.
It's funny coz it seemed like they also cloned the confusion.
I don't really understand what Claude Cowork is. Sometimes I use it instead of plain Claude Chat for tasks that "feel big"? And when I've done that I've felt this was the right choice. But until I actually had that session up and running I would not be able to articulate what Cowork is or enumerate any specifics of how I expected it to behave. I just thought "maybe this is a Cowork task?"
(I have only used the cloud one. My understanding is the the local app is essentially Claude Code but for non-coders, which matches the description of the OpenAI equivalent).
Even as someone who's now used it a few times I wouldn't have been able to articulate as many details as Simon W does in this article, it's a weirdly shaped product structure.
Yeah I jumped on this quite excitedly but it's not prompt injection at all.
To be fair to the authors they don't actually say it is. But then they contrast it with the "0.00% prompt injection attack success rate".
The upshot is kinda the same - this is still evidence that we should be sandboxing our agents. But it doesn't actually challenge Anthropic's "our models are too clever to prompt-inject" vibe.
But Anthropic themselves are the ones who made the equivalence of "0.00% prompt injection attack success rate == auto-mode is safe"
The tweet literally says: "turns out you can get indirect prompt injection to ~0 on unseen attacks... auto mode is default in claude code as of next week"
Making the assertion, quite clearly in my opinion, that the reason auto mode is default is because he feels the lack of successful prompt injection attacks makes auto mode safe. This blog post proves that you can break auto mode's safety, even if it's not technically through a textbook indirect prompt injection attack.
Hmm yeah that's never really been my read on Auto Mode but I guess it's still worth pushing back on any messaging that seems to imply "Auto Mode is all you need".
I would reject "Auto Mode is safe" as a message but FWIW I am totally on board with "on aggregate, making Auto Mode the default improves the safety of Claude Code compared to the prior status quo". Coz I would say in the vast majority of cases the access classifier is doing a better job than the thing it replaced.
Anyway yeah. Like I said, conclusion is the same: we should be decoupling this from the harness. We ought to be sandboxing agents the same way we sandbox applications. I wish Claude Code would make this path smoother :(
Before I left Google recently there was a document going around called go/stake-your-reputation, basically saying "I'm happy to receive your AI generated code but the condition is that I will judge your capabilities by it, exactly as if you handwrote it, and I'll lower my opinion of you if it's slop (with the implication that if you don't improve I'll stop accepting your contributions)"
I think the term "stake your reputation" is quite good for this situation. I.e. "hi new contributor, please acknowledge that you Stake Your Reputation before we move ahead with this code review".
I am, for some reason, quite active commenting on Reddit. And lately the number of comments I see that are obviously Claude has skyrocketed. These are just engaging in normal innocuous comment threads about the day to day stuff I care about (tech, my local region, stuff like that). But obviously they are building organic-looking profiles that can then be exploited to push manipulative content later.
This scares me because the stuff that screams "THIS COMMENT WAS WRITTEN BY CLAUDE" has gotta be the tip of the iceberg. There must be much more of these comments that are better-prompted and using better-tuned model pipelines to make them less detectable. (Probably even just the lazy garbage is harder for me personally to detect if you just pass the prompt to GPT instead of Claude, it's just that I've read so much Claude output that I'm attuned to it).
So yeah suddenly dead internet theory is seeming a lot more real today than it did just a couple of months ago.
It's funny how so many of the Reddit bots - and actually the bots on X as well - are so bad at their job of looking real. When it's a short comment, they're so often using the "The real X is Y" format, or else "X really said Y", and just kind of repeating whatever the post was about.
It means you can comment on the problematic commits saying "please squash this". Then (if it works as well as Gerrit) you can compare the commit between the before and after squash state.
Basically it lets you treat the commits as part of the thing you are reviewing instead of just a minor detail that the UI doesn't care about very much.
(Is it given that there's a play? Waymo is culturally a little distinct from Google so from personal experience I can't actually rule out that they're just doing this coz they think it would be good for the world).
reply