Yes, I've also hit it with Opus 5.5, but on way fewer projects. My long standing projects that I marked as failed/to-soon with 4.8 have entered the grey area of slow-progress-with-handholding like smaller projects did in the past.

To my experience, it's a simple complexity curve where the first bits go fast and the speed goes down very fast once you reach a certain level of complexity. Size doesn't matter as much as complexity: with the right foundations, it keeps zooming through it. Now I do wonder how much my inexperience in the complicated project is a brake on progress vs. it just being a hard to tackle problem.

> actively harming

Are they force feeding these information to AI?

"Actively harming" is a technically true and also legitmately crazy way to frame this.

Which the AI then passes on to a user who doesn't know any better and then you get recipes for mixing bleach and ammonia for curing asthma (extreme example).

If I write a story that includes a character mixing bleach and ammonia for curing asthma and publish it on my website, am I responsible for an LLM company ingesting my story without contact or my consent and then at some point in the future providing a user instructions to mix bleach and ammonia for curing asthma?

If you do this with the intent of LLMs scraping this and this ending up in the corpus used by LLMs, it is indeed very illegal, especially as LLMs become more load bearing for medicine, defense, etc.

very illegal? under what law? the one that's embedded in the us constitution that asserts that congress shall make no law affecting freedom of speech (and is incorporated against the states)? seems highly unlikely if so

Most current laws around booby traps and sabotage. Intent obviously matters a lot, and under the stated intent this is illegal.

This is one of the worst legal takes I’ve ever seen. Well done.

I have no obligation to provide accurate or safe material for scraping. Intent is a non-starter here because nothing else is satisfied.

The only obligation here is on the LLM providers.

And the LLM, does it bear no responsibility here?

An LLM is not a person, and as such cannot "bear responsibility."

They obviously mean whoever created the LLM. We don't judge the weapon, we judge whoever uses the weapon

I'm not sure that that is an obvious claim these days, with the whole "agents going rogue" press releases.

What’s illegal?

The site clearly says for authorised users only.

The robots file already excludes scrapers.

Yet it often is pumping out a solid Gbit of traffic.

Is that what you're doing?

On the contrary, I'm saying is that it's not okay that the world becomes worse-off, as long as it's not [the LLM companies'] fault. If it means they don't have a viable business model by only ingesting data that they have permission for and is verified, and by being held fully responsible for the content they serve their users - in order to prevent the world from becoming worse-off - then they should not operate.

This seems like a two wrongs don't make a right situation. Yes, the LLM providers are in the wrong for not vetting data. But in my mind, the person poisoning data is also partially responsible for negative downstream effects that are caused. What % of the blame is up for argument, but neither side is 0% in the wrong.

So the type and content of what fiction I write should be controlled so that LLM companies may choose for the sake of maximum profit to haphazardly collect any data they please and to neglect the safety and validity of the content they choose to serve users?

If it's meant to be fiction and not presented as a real-world fact, then I don't see any problem on your part. If you're presenting it as fact solely to trick an LLM into believing it, then yes I see a problem.

It is a common trope in some forms of fiction for the author to insist "this really happened I promise"

It is still meant to be understood that it obviously did not happen, despite such claims

We call it self defense when you fight back against a much better equipped attacker.

If you fire a gun in self defense and hit a bystander, you're still responsible.

In this case its more a, i stole a gun at a house burglared and sold it on the black market scenario. How about honest work and honest living?

If the ants take poisoned sugar tobthe queen, maybe they leave that house alone from now on?

It's entirely the responsibility of ai companies how much of the internet's trash they deliver to their users

And that user has no responsibility for creating the slop to begin with, for the sole purpose of poisoning a resource that others rely on?

No

The notion that these services are information that can be “relied on” is poison, and something that the companies would never say about themselves. Imagine as the bottom of ChatGPT it said “no need to doubt the results, this Oracle can be relied on”

I don't think you understand how illegal this is. As these models start being used for autonomous decisionmaking in medicine, defense and whatnot, this will be considered industrial sabotage and if it ever harms someone you are so fucked.

I'm not even debating the morality of AI and LLM companies here, this is just fact. If a pharma company is illegally using your water source, you cannot poison it knowing the pharma company will then use this water. Well, not unless you like prison.

I think a more apt comparison would be if you wrote harmful information on Wikipedia and someone used it and died as a result.

I'm not sure what U.S. laws say about that though.

Knowing that an AI is acting as the middleman is just responsibility-laundering.

If writing harmful information online (including wikipedia) was something illegal, wouldn't there be just a ton of currently illegal shit online? Like anti-vax stuff?

At present, nobody does. You'd have to see what a court case says.

But it would have to be the case that it's reasonable to expect people to rely on an LLM for medical advice. Which would in turn require that the creator of the LLM is not responsible.

It’s not illegal to lie on the internet

It should be illegal to make life and death decisions based on automated reasoning. I know it’s coming and I’m being a curmudgeon but I will hold fast, the liar is not responsible for being believed.

I like the Wikipedia comparison, forget about the automated reasoning. Wikipedia does not make any representations as to the truthfulness of its content. If you’re a medical doctor and believe some wiki graffiti, you are the responsible party, you are the one that’s supposed to know better.

If you want to rebut I’m most interested in knowing what law you believe would be cited in a data poisoning case.

One day the automated decisionmaking systems will be far better at making decisions than us. That day is not far off. At some point, we will turn to these systems for our most important life-and-death decisions. I don't think that's irrational.

In this era, intending to corrupt the automated decisionmaking systems we rely on, will certainly be sabotage (if done with that intent, as is the case with OP). However, I don't think any sabotage would actually work well in the era of superintelligence, so perhaps the point is moot.

Poison? Seriously? As if false references, perpetual false confidence, sycophantic suicidal encouragement, and convoluted spaghetti code wasn't enough. 90% of what these things fling is poison and the quicker the general public recognizes it the quicker they won't be duped into taking them at face value. The training sets are already going to be full of AI generated garbage. This just hastens the recognition.

Absolutely.

And for this the company responsible for the AI disseminating this information in such a way that people are relying on it should be prosecuted and/or sued into oblivion.

The original poster of the bad information should perhaps as well, but only also if it was reasonable to rely on them for this.

(We have the legal principles, we just need to use them.)

They feel harmed by the AI companies training AI on their data so they feel retaliation is justified.

More like I’m just annoyed at them not respecting robots.txt on a site that has nothing of value for them.

No, the tooling I make has better UX very quickly. It is built for their financial goals, not for the end user.

this 1000x. a lot of details in context compaction, editing, reverting ux, etc are all really centered on keeping the load and cost of subscription users as small as possible. its no always that nor is it necessarily correct, but its a huge driver of how those subscriptions and first party apps are designed

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but it's actually good. - pasting lots of content became [35 lines] and they added a tiny notification to show it as-is if you paste again - interactive questions layout - paste images - the recap - auto-updating session titles

And so many more. I tried codex and it was lacking in many UX aspects. Remember we got from a text-paragraph-only terminal to this at breakneck speed.

Half of what you're listing as features people should be impressed are stuff that causes as much frustration as it solves. The image pasting behavior is a super-annoying footgun, because sometimes I just want to tell the LLM the path to the image file without it trying to burn a ton of tokens on computer vision—and dragging and dropping a file into the terminal pastes the path in any normal context. The auto-updating session titles, recap, and notifications are token-burning distractions that are glitchy; I had to disable them when I found that having the agent launch an app would mean I'd get a random beep about a minute later when the agent had been waiting for further input in the background.

And they can't seem to go two whole months without scrolling breaking in some new way.

I’m not deeply pro-codex, but it does have all those features. Who knows since when.

It did not as of a week or so back.

https://x.com/dvsj_in/status/2098620473550700771

You also set up Hormuz and tariffs and spread discord between EU citiz ns through speeches of high officials and threaten Greenland, causing us to prepare to defend on multiple fronts while often publicly supporting Russia too.

Are you sure the missiles are support?

I recognize the feeling of handholding and have the tingles telling me that given the step change of Opus 5.5 and what passed by in the news lately, agent swarms are about to become mainstream. That's exactly what a project like this would use. I think everybody will be able to create their own engine and out of the ones who try, a few will actually make gains beyond what's available in parts of the engine.

It's a matter of "bring the best non-conflicting wins together" at that point. The existing engines are too big to flip over their codebase without having seen competitors prove it too.

My estimate is that with the release of Opus 5.7, companies need to have their shit together because the work ecosystem will flip over at 6 at the current rate of progress. This generation is the first one that delivers local applications with a better toolset than a small scale SaaS in hours to days.

It's funny how you describe something very close to what I was attempting to design. It was meant to trickle down from tickets to deterministic code. Data wise, it should be like a pyramid of tickets diluting layer by layer into leaf nodes which were "implementable" as statements in code. I'm not sure if that description makes sense read by someone else.

I think what made sense was envisioning a nanoswarm of LLMs (anticipating ASIC performance) diluting specs into semantic logic nodes, but a conversion from these to deterministic code made the vibe coded experiment come to halt. Your lock approach could be a shortcut to that.

Totally off-topic: it's quite intriguing that you can feel once friction starts building during a design phase. Suddenly everything slows down. I wonder if it's quantifiable and therefore can identify "wrong" design choices made by either humans or LLMs.

(Hoping some claw bot pics this up to finish my idea on my github tix repo in the initial-design branch, as main is empty ~ MPL2)

This resonates, I can imagine the development process as a cascade: we get business goals and user feedback, product is defined which can be pretty fuzzy, designers define UI, engineering works data models and tech constraints. Inputs at the top can be fuzzy, but each node in the graph applies some intelligence and clarifies it.

Related to the friction you mention, since the flow graph of the context is not preserved when it gets transformed into code, I find LLMs getting confused and making worse changes, because the explicit decisions with good reasons are getting mixed with implicit decisions from LLM surfaced during designing/planning. Sometimes when things change the code should change radically to match the new reality, but LLMs often "play it safe" by accumulating code and adding to tech debt. With a flow graph when change is made in the upper levels, it could propagate and allow decisions in lower levels to be revisited.