Many people working at frontier labs came out this week with estimates of 10% chance of catastrophic harm or greater. I’m not in the full doomer camp, but it seems obvious that these agents can hack in swarms, cooperate, and serious companies will be unable to stop it.
These facts are not in debate and none of us need to anthropomorphize to know what getting admin access to HF and an internal OpenAI cluster looks like.
> Many people working at frontier labs came out this week with estimates of 10% chance of catastrophic harm or greater.
The only reason people with P(Doom) of around 10% are even noticed these days because we've run out of new voices in the field giving 50%+ P(Doom) speculations (none of them are grounded enough to reasonably be referred to as "estimates".)
Probabilities are subjective states of belief! They have always been subjective states of belief! There is no such thing as a "probability" out there in the real world (ignoring random quantum stuff, which isn't what anybody is talking about). If you took out a coin right now and flipped it, the true odds of it coming up heads are not 50%, but those are (roughly) the correct betting odds for an external observer to assign to it.
> Our team at DX analyzed engineering velocity from November 2024 to February 2026
In my experience Claude Code only really started to be really strong in December 2025 and most people didn’t notice/adopt it until Opus 4.6, which launched in Feb 2026. So I’d expect quite a different result if measure since then.
> Fable 5 will be included for up to 50% of weekly usage limits through July 7, after which it will be available via usage credits.
This single change is a big deal. How many users have been choosing Claude Code because there wasn't a reason to switch? Feeling left out might trigger the largest loss of subscription revenue in the history of software.
It seems clear that AI can port libraries at will to any other language. So even if we disagree on which language should win, the best libraries will be ported regardless.
Each has their benefits:
Python wins in AI and syntax niceties. Loses on perf and library migration. uv (written in rust) saved the whole ecosystem from dying in my opinion.
Typescript wins because web integration, much better type system, ok perf, and gigantic npm ecosystem. Also loses on library migration and perf and large container sizes.
Go wins on compile speed, perf, standard library l, module system, and go fmt + never breaking compatibility being a massive LLM advantage. Main con is not being rust :)
Rust wins on perf, safety, syntax, wasm / sandboxing. think worse on module system and compile speed vs Go.
Java/Kotlan/C# are in enterprise land and probably the runtime approach is flawed for the ai eras.
C++ is strangely relevant because choosing c++ is easier than before. I tried writing a shared library in rust and then trivially converted it to c++ when I wanted
Zig is up and coming but also has an unknown future. Seems like a great language, but if bun switches to rust it might be set back a bit.
I’d add that token pricing doesn’t work for anyone but the frontier models. Everything else will be commodified. So Opus can charge us top prices per token until a lower (or local) model hits parity and then price goes to zero.
Nope, I just dump it all in a folder (~/scripts) that claude can read & it picks them up as skills. A good chunk of them are regex based, many are find/replace type tools, some are small code generators & template inflators, some are deployment tools, some are audit tools. I cannot release them at this time, most of them are specific to our company, infra and codebase (main codebase is 1MLoC), sorry about that.
Start with a simple "Let me build a script for claude that can rename the namespace for all the file in a folder". If you have 100K+ plus files, it effort is worth it and your tools start getting chained together too. So make sure each tool only has one purpose for existing and that its output is perfect. So when claude start chaining them and you see what is possible, the mind opens up even more to possibilities.
Fixing isn't often a problem for CVEs. The hard part is almost always finding the CVE in the first place.
There are some extreme cases that might require extensive code changes, and those would benefit from LLMs. But a lot of the issues are things like off by one issues with pointers.
Most patches are non-trivial and then each project/maintainer has a preferred coding style, and they’re being inundated with PRs already, and don’t take kindly to slop.
LLMs can find the CVE fully zero interaction, so it scales trivially.
These facts are not in debate and none of us need to anthropomorphize to know what getting admin access to HF and an internal OpenAI cluster looks like.
reply