Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | 6thbit's commentslogin

that's such a loaded statement.

This is the power of language.

The bias is built into it.


I thought Codex at least already can handle interactive sessions of programs, e.g. GDB.

Calling squash stupid sounds like a case of Dunning-Kruger.

If you've worked on a large team without squashing and without increasing frustration I'd be greatly interested to hear about it.


Now we have to wonder if they ran Mythos on their Calude source and it missed it or why they chose not to run it.

I do agree and wonder why that's not marked as security. In their security page [0] it says: > Since exploitability is not proven for many of the fixes we make, do not expect the relevant commit message to say "SECURITY FIX!".

Does that mean they considered it not to be exploitable?

[0] https://www.openbsd.org/security.html


I really don't know, all I know is that usually when you find a critical vulnerability, and it's patched, it comes with a CVE, even a low one, that's the process for the past 27 years when the CVE program started (as old as the vulnerability itself it seems..) but maybe with AI-native, CVEs don't matter because everyone will just rewrite their clean room open source alternative (I wish this was a joke...)

This seems to be the mind-games play. FOMO at the moment, if they push it successfully you could even be labeled negligent for not paying them for it.

It's only a moat if you believe no competing lab will achieve similar or better results in a large enough time frame to profit from it.

Thats not what a moat means in business. It doesn’t mean impregnable, it just means expensive or difficult to cross.

It is absolutely a moat if only $1T companies can afford the capex to compete.


non-zero already existing companies can afford to compete, so its not a great preliminary line of defense against your main enemies.

If the existing competition's turn around time to out-benchmark you is in the order of weeks, its an absolutely terrible moat.


This is silly and disingenuous. In a matter of days or weeks a competing lab will make public a model with capabilities beyond this “mythos” one.

Is this a huge fear-driven marketing stunt to get governments and corporations into dealing with anthropic?


It works, it is popular, sure. Claude's code may be barely old enough to have suffered through its true long-term maintainability problems. They probably also haven't had a lot of rotation/attrition in their staff.

I still can’t believe they don’t let you search videos within a channel for example.

Or filter out music playlist from video ones.

Or search within transcripts.

It’s peak irony a company owned by the search overlord.


You can search videos within a channel, go to the channel page and look for the magnifying glass all the way at the end of the nav bar that has

Home | Videos | Shorts | Playlists | Posts | *Magnifying glass here*

Well at least in browser its there, I can't find it on mobile for whatever reason.


you're right! i was only looking at the mobile version. Sucks it's not there cause I typically don't have my pc around when infront of the TV and wanna search something.

I made a little TUI last month for searching within a channel! It supports before: / after:, fuzzy/exact/regex matching, lets you order by upload date/views/duration, lets you search over just a video's titles or descriptions, etc: https://github.com/nolenroyalty/yt-browse

The vast majority of my youtube watching is "go to a specific channel and try to find a certain kind of video" so it drives me nuts that youtube channel search is so bad (and afaik you can't search a channel on mobile?). I end up using my tool to find a bunch of videos and get them into my history to watch on my ipad.

n.b. my tool downloads all video metadata for a channel and then searches over it locally, so it's pretty slow the first time you search a channel (results are cached for 24 hours though).


> I still can’t believe they don’t let you search videos within a channel for example.

Uh, yeah, they do.

https://www.youtube.com/@PuddleOfMuddTV/search?query=blurry

> Or search within transcripts.

Yeah, I also wish this were possible using the normal CTRL+F just doesn't work properly


I've had ctrl+f work for searching within the transcript on the page recently. I assumed it wouldn't due to lazy loading, but was surprised because the video I tried it on was quite long.

filmot.com exists too (found it on here, currently can't get past the cloudflare captcha to double check), but I have no idea how much of youtube's transcripts it has archived.


> I've had ctrl+f work for searching within the transcript on the page recently. I assumed it wouldn't due to lazy loading, but was surprised because the video I tried it on was quite long.

That was previously the case for me, none of the results outside of the current view would show up.

I just went to try, and I noticed that you can actually search in a transcript now!? There's a search bar


It’s peak irony a company owned by the search overlord.

...whose search engine has itself become noticeably less of a search engine and more of a recommendation/sheeple-herding engine over time.


Google of today would absolutely get steamrolled by any of the search engines it used to compete against. Now granted the web of today is mostly a toxic waste pile vs more of a cluttered basement back then.

Is there an annotated picture mapping city “light dots” to city names?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: