These guys are now the biggest slowdown to fixing issues with their bullshit cyber detection. They drop a model, let the model find security issues in your code, then when you want to fix them you need to play a game of charades so it doesn't realize it's creating a validation and then a fix for the issue because you might be hacking yourself. Meanwhile attackers are using some ablated deepseek or what have you.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

xnorswap 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's frustrating. Claude thinks it finds a way to hop from one client to another, but any attempt to get it to demonstrate it isn't relying on something that's already prevented runs into "safety" concerns and gets blocked.

I'm not that hot on the idea of open models, but having something dangled in front of you but suddenly unable to verify is not a good feeling.

With the right amount of coaxing you can sometimes get it to reproduce a PoC with a "TDD first" approach to fixing, but often now that gets blocked too.

▲

featwanz 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why wouldn't everyone be hot on open models? Security implications? First time I have heard someone lightly opposing the idea of fully open models.

▲

xnorswap an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not opposed to open models at all, I'm just slightly sceptical on how much some people push their use compared to the value we get out of a dirt cheap subscription.

Propriety models are clearly subsidised by enterprise API contracts, so it makes sense to milk that for all its worth, provided one steers clear of any lock in so the option to switch is always there.

Jumping to spending time managing and self-hosting open models is a nice ideal but I think it's a distraction to jump on that train without proven benefits given the value that other plans deliver.

I don't mean I'm against the idea of open models, they were especially instrumental in Anthropic backing down from the "Fable only initially available 2 weeks" plan, which got extended up until Fable was over-taken by Opus in general usefulness.

It's my view that any company sized appropriately for Teams plan should be milking it for all its worth while it still exists, and it is a waste to lose that opportunity by jumping on open models too early.

If you're a larger enterprise then it would be a very different story, you'd already be paying more forced onto API pricing and would likely have the capacity to have a team look at open models without impacting delivery.

	▲	rgbrenner an hour ago \| parent [-]
		there is a middle ground between proprietary models and self-hosting: Fireworks, et al. Popular models like DeepSeek have a couple dozen providers on openrouter.

▲

ajb 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There's a lot of lobbying against open models on the grounds of a) China and b) open models mean we won't be able to prevent a hard takeoff.

▲

generic92034 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

On the other hand this sounds like a job guarantee, though. And not only for the moment, as it is not the capability of the model which is insufficient.

▲

vasco 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So far I can always get around it by starting fresh sessions on a similar problem and without ever mentioning security issues, but why do I have to play this little theater with a tool we pay to use.

▲

esperent 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Meanwhile attackers are using some ablated deepseek or what have you.

I think the hackers are just using "not Claude".

▲

abc123abc123 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

In the kingdom of vibe coderz the engineer is king!