Can someone please explain plainly what this means and what happened, and why it is the source of so much controversy?

I'm not being insincere - I am genuinely confused and would benefit greatly from a (hopefully unbiased) recollection of what this is all about.

Here's my take-

Anthropic has some contracts with the US government. They want some additional terms put on their next contract (that seem pretty sane). SecWar cries about it, and not only says "no thanks, I'll just go with openai or google" but goes to daddy Trump and also puts out illegal commands for no Federal workers to use any Anthropic stuff at all. OpenAI swoops in and takes the contract, then tells everyone that they have the same terms but just played nicer to get the contract. However, their terms are just manipulative sentences that aren't even close to the terms Anthropic is insisting on to do business.

That has more to do with the shortcomings of 3d printing.

Are you saying vibed code doesn’t have shortcomings

I think some or maybe even many of those shortcomings will apply to software, too. Making actual good software is not as trivial as writing “make me an app”, much as making an actual good spoon is not as trivial as throwing an STL at a printer and calling it a day.

They likely won’t have a full pretrain for awhile. Just like everyone else, the name of the game now is to finetune existing models.

The system should not allow them to exist.

Well until there’s an accurate LLM detector, that’s as good as it gets.

This is why we have bad things in the first place :(

It was not. In the article, first few paragraphs.

To be fair, some of the best software out there has multiple levels of verbosity. Usually enabled with extra ‘-v’ short options.

> --json

Seriously? This can't be a comparable experience in terms of UX.

I think my read of "hiding" was more of a "trying to hide the secret sauce" which was implied in a few places.

Otherwise it seems like a minor UI decision any other app would make and it surprising there's whole articles on it.

> I think my read of "hiding" was more of a "trying to hide the secret sauce" which was implied in a few places.

That was very much not my read of it.

Given that we're talking about terminals, I'd argue there's a pretty good precedent for "hidden" meaning "not visible by default but possible to view at the expense of less clarity and extra noise"; no one th

It’s obvious from the subtext and the point that the movie is trying to make. The metaphor is that sometimes you fall in love with someone who outgrows you. I believe they even originally had a more “robotic” voice actor but changed it to Scarlett in order to make it crystal clear that she is as sentient as, if not more so, than Theodore is.

Sure, it's a movie so it's going to use human voice actors and have an actual story and point, but my point was more on the technological side, that the bots in the movie aren't much different than what we have today and we in fact cannot know if they're conscious or not, even if they seem to be.

> we in fact cannot know if they're conscious or not, even if they seem to be

They (modern LLM's/agents) don't "seem to be" from my point of view. I respectfully disagree I suppose.

edit: One data point - https://www.twitch.tv/claudeplayspokemon . Claude has been failing to to beat pokemon, a game effectively made for children, for _months_ now.

My reference to "they" was to the bots in the movie, not the real life ones we have today, which I agree don't seem to have consciousness. My point of contention is that the ones in the movie don't either, they just appear to have it (for theatrical effect, but analyzed philosophically and technologically, I don't think so), and that's where we probably disagree.

> for theatrical effect, but analyzed philosophically and technologically

If theatrical effect basically means "the intent of the production of the film", then they don't merely appear to do have sentience - they _do_ in the context of the filmmakers' vision. Whether you think it was plausible or not is sort of a different discussion I feel.

At any rate, I found Samantha to be a highly plausible ASI or whatever you want to call it. Johanson's performance really sold it for me.

What do people involved with the production of the film have to say about it?

The director intended to make a satire, but critics (and mrob) assert that he failed to do so.

Am I the only one who vehemently despised this movie?

Yes, you are the only one who is wrong ;)