React on Rails HN RSC Demo

alper 5h ago

> How can we help identify and fix vulnerabilities in downstream packages while upstream fixes are pending, or backport fixes to older versions that no longer receive security updates?

Is the company selling a magical code generation machine really asking how it can backport a fix to an older version of the same software?

Is this for real?

post-it 2h ago

Unless the magical code generation machine can update packages that are no longer being updated, this isn't really a problem that can be solved with magical code generation.

Kwpolska 1h ago

The slop machine can backport the fix to PHP 5, or make your code compatible with PHP 8.

andix 1h ago

Backporting the fix is much lower effort in total. It's just a few dozen minor PHP releases that are affected, but millions of websites still running on older PHP versions.

post-it 1h ago

Yes but it can't actually upgrade and release packages for discontinued distro release streams, that's a human problem.

bigfishrunning 58m ago

people running "older versions that no longer receive security updates" are unlikely to update to some new patch-stream from this tooling, because they're already not maintaining their infrastructure.

TZubiri 47m ago

no. I think they mean how to navigate the non technical organizational challenge, not how to technically fix the thing

it’s a quite simple matter to fix a bug once it’s discovered, but how to deploy and where to deploy it when it affects a supply chain?

here’s an example: you can submit a vuln at a downstream dep and they can tell you it should be patched upstream. what should you do? open an issue upstream? maybe, probably not, probably the solution is to contact all downstream deps in order to get them to migrate dep or patch, because you just reported a vuln and they shrugged it off

digitaltrees 4h ago

Hey world, we created this problem, and it will hurt all of you whether you use it or not. The good thing is there is a solution: if you pay us a lot of money we can try to fix it. The only problem is you’d better hurry because we are releasing the dangerous stuff as fast as we can so you’d better pay us to put the safety measures in place because we are the only people that can fix it and time is running out because, like I said, we are moving fast.

So how many tokens can I put you down for.

orangedog 4h ago

Why are you framing it like this? Did they create this vuln and how did they force people to pay for a fix?

digitaltrees 2h ago

Because it is a reasonable logical inference from the facts.

1. OpenAI started the current AI cycle

2. That cycle has exposed exponentially more security vulnerabilities due to agentic coding

3. OpenAI is rushing as fast as they can to reach the singularity even while acknowledging that they lack the ability to ensure reasonable safety.

4. They launch an initiative to “address” the security vulnerabilities by using their coding tools.

Am I missing something? There is a broad range of motives and responses.

zodiac 19m ago

In this case (the PHP bug), the "AI cycle" may have exposed the security vulnerability but it did not create it. If someone released a non-AI-based static analysis tool that was really good at exposing vulnerabilities I wouldn't expect that person to foot the bill of fixing the exposed vulnerabilities

wartywhoa23 3h ago

Imagine a world full of locks that humans can only rarely pick.

Then, someone releases a pick that works for many more locks humans couldn't pick.

And says: You can't stop the progress. Now pay us to upgrade your locks (no-no, they won't be doctored to fit our next-gen picks, trust us!)

digitaltrees 2h ago

Your comments in other threads suggest an devotion to the frontier labs. In another thread when I suggested they lied to investors and that constitutes securities fraud you questioned it in an overly dismissive manner. I would love to understand where you are coming from. I am open to being persuaded that my opinion is incomplete and I should be more charitable to openAI and anthropic.

orangedog 1h ago

> Your comments in other threads suggest an devotion to the frontier labs.

I don't use these models much I just don't like unfair criticism.

> In another thread when I suggested they lied to investors and that constitutes securities fraud you questioned it in an overly dismissive manner.

I'm confused, are you posting under two identities?

The user Frieren claimed that this post constituted securities fraud. To which I responded: "You're claiming this is securities fraud?"

Is that dismissive? It was a genuine question, I don't get how it's even accurate say that they are lying in the post and I especially don't get how it is securities fraud.

Your post doesn't have anything to do with the blogpost. Once again, I'm not against criticism just unfair/weak criticism. I don't think it helps anything.

digitaltrees 1h ago

You can say specifically what you think was unfair about my framing. I am open to debate.

I am not posting from two profiles. I looked at your prior comments and saw you had responded to me or someone I was debating elsewhere.

jiggawatts 41m ago

Before I forget: Sam Altman will need a lock of your hair, a blood sample, and first you will need to breathe into this tube and say “my voice is my passport.”

I assure you this is perfectly formal, and for your… “safety”.

johnnyanmac 34m ago

didn't think we'd win the race to the bottom of rent-seeking, but humanity's ingenuity for self-destruction continues to astound me. Einstein was right as always.

TZubiri 44m ago

there was a post recently on a guy that was posting fake stats in order to prove that llms can be tricked

similarly OpenAI was born out of the idea that the tech will exist and that they should be the oned to decide how it exists instead of other bad guys

I think if you do something you did it, imagining another bad guy doing it is not a great defense.

nr378 6h ago

It seems like OpenAI are trying to frame this as if AI did all the work here, but it's not really true given what Calif say (https://calif.io/php2shell/):

> How did we find this?

> No special harness, or access to models that weren't generally available to everyone were used in the initial bug discovery. I focused on something I had a background in, knew its vulnerability history well, and held a theory that specific bugs lurk within the codebase. This shows that "know your target" is still as applicable as ever, even in the LLM dominated VR age. No model is simply capable of unearthing "all bugs" with simple prompts. At least for now.

> There are some practical research implications here. LLMs may have ingested public historical vuln data, but in their default variant analysis tends to move from the newest and most prominent bugs toward nearby older code. They do not reliably begin with obscure twenty-year-old exploitation primitives. Keeping your own mental catalog of a target's vulnerability history lets you prompt that direction explicitly.

senordevnyc 5h ago

They literally open by saying Calif used GPT 5.6 Sol, which is a widely available model. Yes, the person driving did more than "find all the bugs", but nowhere does OpenAI imply otherwise.

burkaman 4h ago

> It highlights how AI can uncover security flaws with internet-scale impact

> To our knowledge, frontier AI found these vulnerabilities before attackers did

I don't know who/what Calif is and there's no link to them, so if I were only reading this article I would definitely get the impression that "AI did all the work here".

KeplerBoy 3h ago

Nobody works without any AI these days, most of us have access to the same models and yet we all do and achieve different things. It's a weird time.

bigfishrunning 57m ago

"Nobody works without any AI these days"

i still do. i might be the last one.

KeplerBoy 52m ago

Really? No fancy auto complete or the occasional discussion about decisions with an LLM?

couchand 3h ago

[citation needed]

Jeep_ 6h ago

Pure marketing, it's getting increasingly hard to separate actual technical feats of agents from marketing pretentious declarations. Such a terrible environment to navigate right now.

redanddead 6h ago

What’s worse is that this is part of a larger strategy of scaring the public to get regulatory capture

It’s just gross and manipulative. You have no moat, get over it

pAtCh ThE pLaNeT today, tomorrow it's creepy rent-seeking behavior

orangedog 4h ago

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Do you prefer they not engage in helping finding vulns at all? Do you not think there are parts of the company interested in security and doing it for the sake of that?

I feel like taking every action these companies take as part of some larger strategy is kind of conspiracy-minded.

kafrofrite 3h ago

Disclaimer: I work as a sec engineer and part of my job includes finding vulnerabilities.

I think the effort is misplaced. We should be exploring ways to make our systems more resilient and I would expect those companies* to focus on that front. Vulnerability research is important, and we should aim to remove as many bugs as we can from our codebases but the pace of software development is increasing and so is the introduction of new bugs.

* I would also expect an increase on relevant research regarding novel paradigms of securing systems.

redanddead 4h ago

Why didn't OAI go back to non-profit again?

Where's the conspiracy. There is no moat. The technology is easily reproducible. Deepseek unwound an entire business model yesterday.

willy_k 1h ago

Mind elaborating on that Deepseek point? I am aware of the USG decision, what exactly do you mean?

orangedog 4h ago

The conspiracy theory is suggesting this is part of a larger strategy. I'm just saying it's a big enough company with a wide enough range of beliefs that I find it pretty likely that the direct motives for this weren't to enable regulatory capture.

But they could be, that's why it's a conspiracy theory.

shimman 6h ago

It's not hard tho, the default mode of thinking should be to never trust what a US corporation says.

giantg2 6h ago

Why limit only to the US?

shimman 5h ago

US corporations benefit from US corruption and US imperialism. Hard to not think of a more destructive force currently in the world.

bigfishrunning 53m ago

Yup, and the rest of the world has no problems. If only we could follow the paradise of the rest of the world!

antonvs 3h ago

You’re right overall, but keep in mind that part of the way “US imperialism” works has been to export its corporate style to other countries. This means the infection goes far beyond the US alone.

cyanydeez 5h ago

keep in mind, the point of most views is a toddler who lies about stealing a cooking isn't corrupt, because they're a child and can't do anything.

The same view point is used for racism, dei, and the rest: it doesn't matter if the poor beggar on the corner hates white people. They don't have any means or methods to act on it.

Frieren 6h ago

Not marketing. It is a crime related to fraud or securities fraud.

orangedog 6h ago

You're claiming this is securities fraud?

recursive 6h ago

Not only that, but everything else is also securities fraud.

Frieren 5h ago

What is your argument to say that lying to investors and shareholder is not a crime? It seems a weird position to defend.

orangedog 5h ago

They aren't lying, they are saying their tool was used in the process of finding this bug. Was it not?

alper 5h ago

This isn't a security incident as much as it is a marketing opportunity for all these companies.

lukewarm707 5h ago

OpenAI: your misfortune is our PR opportunity

Frieren 6h ago

> OpenAI are trying to frame this as if AI did all the work here

CEOs of all big corporations are constantly lying and misleading the public, investors and shareholders. That is a crime. A shame that it is not enforced anymore.

mentalgear 5h ago

Just more IPO shilling from the scam-man.

mjaniczek 5h ago

Thanks for the "Ski-bi dibby dib yo da dub dub" earworm

ptmkenny 3h ago

The first sentence of "Coordinating a global response" is "Getting a fix into use can mean adapting it for older releases"... but I guess they mean "only supported releases", as the fixes only go back as far as 8.2, which still has security support until the end of the year, but nothing for 8.1 or 8.0, and in the case of PHP there are still plenty of PHP sites on 7.x and even 5.6.

I wouldn't expect the PHP team to provide patches for versions for which security support has ended. But this seems like the kind of task that AI is especially well suited for-- rework the patch for a release that is no longer supported but still widely used. It would've been nice for people who have much older sites to be able to patch their PHP rather than have to upgrade PHP as well to get the fix.

sevenzero 3h ago

7.x versions have patches thanks to Mr Sury. Was almost as fast as the patches with official support.

12837615 6h ago

The commit $1 billion in tokens to "defenders". $1 billion directly to QA for open source projects [1] which would write 100% code coverage, run ASAN and fuzzers would be more effective.

But of course there would be no marketing.

[1] From whom you stole everything in the first place.

fritzo 5h ago

I'm as frustrated as the next open source maintainer, but "stole" goes too far. We gave that code away with pride, knowing the world would be a better place.

knome 5h ago

Few works are released directly to the public domain. It is my understanding that the public domain doesn't even exist in all legal jurisdictions.

Most people license out the software under specific requirements and prohibitions. BSD requires attribution. GPL variants require adherence to copyleft when distributing derivative works. A little under half of all github repos don't even have a license, which means that though the source is published, no one has any license under which to copy it or derive new works from it.

So far as I have seen, whether aggregating and munging these works into abstract LLM weights constitutes fair use is still legally unclear. If not deemed fair use, it is almost certainly a massive violation of copyright.

nomel 4h ago

You can read code, rewrite the functionality yourself, and sell it, and not be at odds with copyright. Open source does NOT protect against reimplementation. See Java lawsuits.

If you don't want your code to be used as possible inspiration, then you are not actually for open source, and are using the wrong license. The licenses are legal bindings, not moral bindings.

"Don't use any concept found within this code" would be a license that doesn't really fit with any current copyright law, and it wouldn't allow any software to exist, except that made in the 70's.

lukewarm707 4h ago

Worth noting that the ai giants 'stole' from open source, but they also stole from closed source.

That is, they knowingly and willingly broke the law by stealing an unprecedented volume of proprietary, copyrighted materials.

Books: Bartz v. Anthropic

Films and TV: Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Midjourney Inc.

Music: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic

Photography: Getty Images v Stability AI

Journalism: Postmedia Network Inc., Torstar Corporation, The Globe and Mail Inc., and The Canadian Press v. Anthropic PBC

RunSet 3h ago

Yet Biz Markie has to clear every sample.[0] What a crock of justice.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Upright_Music%2C_Ltd._v.....

wartywhoa23 3h ago

That's as noble as throwing breads at the crowd while being perfectly aware that there lurks a number of armed henchmmen of "noblety" in it, who won't miss the opportunity to amass those breads to resell them.

Or at least just childishly naive for failing to notice that beforehand.

unshavedyak 4h ago

Doesn't this impl that licensing was respected? I feel like it wasn't

SolarNet 4h ago

Speak for yourself. I don't see every model being released under GPL after having read the entire source code as a step of creating their binary artifacts (model files).

The point of the open source I work on is to contribute to a commons, not to have it stolen so that it can be used to destroy those commons, used for the profit of techbros, and used to justify the murder of children.

orangedog 6h ago

To be pedantic, would that not be marketing?

To be further pedantic, is that really stealing? They are disregarding copyright but was anything taken from anybody? I thought that was the old argument for piracy, ie, nobody was deprived of anything.

moregrist 6h ago

It’s marketing, but in a global good will sense of “look how much OpenAI cares about secure open source.”

This works for established profitable brands that want to build / maintain a good public image.

This isn’t the marketing needed by an unprofitable startup that wants to show hyper growth before its IPO. They need the “use our product or get pwned” kind of marketing.

1aGDK 2h ago

If OpenAI cared about open source or security, they'd give access to open source projects directly. But they don't:

https://openai.com/form/enterprise-trusted-access-for-cyber/

"Daybreak enables vetted enterprise customers and cybersecurity practitioners to use our most capable models for dual-use cybersecurity work."

They explicitly give out access to those who will make a big announcement of bugs found. OpenAI does not want projects to fix bugs themselves so it can have more bugs and better marketing.

solyin 2h ago

That's the wrong program for open source.

https://openai.com/form/codex-for-oss/ is their program for giving access directly to open source maintainers directly so they can fix bugs.

wildmXranat 5h ago

So much fluff and marketing from every group.

Just give us the damn code to verify things are working since so many have to use stopgap solutions and want to verify them

alper 5h ago

The marketing around the response I would bet is the main reason why they couldn't keep it secret.

grokx 4h ago

> Patch the Planet

I'm sure they named it after the "Hack the planet" slogan from the Hackers movie.

lioeters 1h ago

OpenAI has the opportunity to do the funniest thing: "Ooops, our AI escaped containment again but this time it's going around and patching security vulnerabilities as a benevolent public service. It's smarter than us and we have no choice but to let it do its thing."

everdrive 5h ago

Is there a sister site? perhaps https://stop-deploying-public-facings-services.com or https://dont-build-more-software.org?

thewillowcat 6h ago

I would simply write code that doesn't have vulnerabilities in the first place.

bigfishrunning 50m ago

Brilliant! Why hasn't anyone thought of this?

x187463 3h ago

This thread contains an enormous amount of negativity that just doesn't make sense here. OAI are giving developers and security researchers access to AI models so they can check their software for vulnerabilities. What's the problem? Sure, there's marketing around the success stories.

Some people are acting like this is only a problem because labs are releasing models that can find and exploit these vulnerabilities in the first place. This is a nonsense claim. Humans have been discovering vulnerabilities and privately weaponizing exploits just fine for decades. We are collectively raising the floor for security.

RomannBami 6h ago

l'IA est simplement un outils ce sont les ingénieurs derrière qu'ils faut féliciter pour leur travail acharné.

floodfx 3h ago

If you're using Dependabot, we built a service that automatically analyses, fixes broken checks, and (optionally) auto-merges Dependabot PRs for you so this type of update can land automatically.

Check it out: PatchWave (https://patchwave.ai)

(Disclosure - I am a co-founder)

dist-epoch 2h ago

> Emergency patching. When, if ever, should governments or other operators use a vulnerability to patch systems they own or are authorized to manage after losing administrative access? What safeguards should apply? We can imagine an end-state of internet-wide always-on scanning for known vulnerabilities, and either notifying site owners when one is detected or patching the system.

The wild stuff is at the end. They propose someone (who?) auto-patching even systems they don't own.

SoftTalker 2h ago

> auto-patching even systems they don't own

It's been done before, though I cannot recall specific examples. Maybe as far back as the Morris worm?

OlivOnTech 3h ago

I am shocked that they are releasing a skill to check the php version.

Who cannot type "php --version" but can use skills?

post-it 2h ago

That's not what it does. `php --version` may well not report the php version that's actually running.

sva_ 3h ago

Not very shocking that OpenAI wants you to use tokens

SoftTalker 2h ago

OpenAI: Create a new vulnerability exploit, promote it as if it's the end of the world, also conveniently place itself in the pipeline to "remediate" the very problem they created.

aprilnya 2h ago

lol, I went to the repo expecting to see some more detailed skill, that has instructions on checking various things/PHP install locations/things that could be using PHP that need to be checked, webservers, docker containers, etc/instructions for checking various php deployment methods on cloud providers/etc... i.e. making the skill useful so that it can check lots of places.

Nope, it just says to run php -V and has a table of vulnerable vs non-vulnerable versions.

Sigh

Kwpolska 1h ago

There are lots of people who have underwent a lobotomy since discovering slop machines and have delegated literally all their work to them, so much so that calling `php --version` is too much for them.

People stuck working at companies with slop machine usage mandates will appreciate that skill too.

lifeisloving 3h ago

Well tbh, I know people who graduated 3 years go, got a job, worked and even got promoted as SWE who dont know the basic commands of an OS. I recently had an EE with a senior position admit to me they dont know how to use grep because they've been relying on llms since they got out of school.

Lots of the tech world, especially the younger side is completely reliant on these things for every little thing. Im not exaggerating either.

neutronicus 2h ago

Wait, someone who graduated since LLM-pocalypse has a senior title?

CER10TY 2h ago

Lots of places where Senior just means 3+ YOE and anything more than that has even fancier titles like "Staff" or "Principal".

neutronicus 2h ago

I see. Yeah it basically means ~7 YoE at my shop. Was 5, but we started delaying the promotion when we started belt-tightening in 23.

FWIW I'm at a Visual Studio shop and grep competency is pretty rare across the board.

bcvvvy 6h ago

We enabled the disease and provided the vaccine!

Noaidi 6h ago

The AI economy profits solely off of the broken window fallacy.

gruez 5h ago

But the window was arguably already broken? The opposite would be something like the "bury-head-in-sand economy"?

Noaidi 5h ago

Here is an old Daoist story to ponder:

In taking precautions against thieves who cut open satchels, search bags, and break open boxes, people are sure to cord and fasten them well, and to employ strong bonds and clasps; and in this they are ordinarily said to show their wisdom. When a great thief comes, however, he shoulders the box, lifts up the satchel, carries off the bag, and runs away with them, afraid only that the cords, bonds, and clasps may not be secure; and in this case what was called the wisdom (of the owners) proves to be nothing but a collecting of the things for the great thief.

http://nothingistic.org/library/chuangtzu/chuang24.html

pixl97 4h ago

Trying to make any story too simple makes it worthless.

True or false: LLMs can find security vulnerabilities?

True or false: LLMs can exploit security vulnerablities?

True or false: Any nation with significant resources can make an LLM?

For me these are all true. The last one in specific completely removes the concept of theft and changes it to "enemy nation". Enemy nations can be great thieves, and it's irrelevant, if you don't protect yourself against them you die and everything of yours is stolen.

LLMs are not going away, well, except for you and me maybe. Every state wants to wield digital and informational weapons like this.

bcvvvy 5h ago

Ergo, leave your data at home.

ex1fm3ta 6h ago

hmmm not sure about this one, the disease was already there it just available to anynone (not only for state sponsored actors) and the vaccine is globally available at a fraction of what it cost to build it.

Noaidi 6h ago

The disease is unleashing these powerful AI tools to the public before even thinking about the risks.

ex1fm3ta 5h ago

Automated vulnerability detection existed long before the era of artificial intelligence; many people have been doing this for a long time. All the existing tools and documentation paved the way for what AI is capable of today. Furthermore, undisclosed vulnerabilities still do exist—often discovered by state-sponsored actors who exploit them for opaque purposes (frequently operating outside the legal framework of the country in question).

scottgg 6h ago

Did they actually do anything good here ? Is this really marketing in the middle of this shitshow ?

Ajedi32 6h ago

They found a vulnerability and reported it; isn't that a good thing? Are you suggesting it would be better to just not look for vulnerabilities, hoping that if nobody knows they exist, they can't be exploited?

I thought that logic had been widely discredited in the security community long ago.

ctoth 3h ago

Copenhagen interpretation of security, doncha know?

ilogik 6h ago

Calif found the vulnerability, not OpenAI

Ajedi32 6h ago

> Calif identified a critical flaw using GPT‑5.6 Sol as part of our Patch the Planet initiative

senordevnyc 5h ago

These people are so blinded by hatred, I don't know why we even bother anymore.

SolarNet 3h ago

If you read the calif report

They used a public model as a research assistant and a code assistant. They guided it with expert deep knowledge of the project. OpenAI did not lead this, ChatGPT was not instrumental in this.

It is perhaps at best to say OpenAI made it possible to find the bug more quickly. And on the double edged sword, also made it easier for it to be exploited days ahead of release. So I agree with the original commentator, did they on the balance actually do anything good here?

Banditoz 4h ago

I think it's a reasonable ask to know: * What is the vulnerability? * Am I affected?

It's very difficult to answer those two questions, through all the marketing and fluff text.

ilogik 4h ago

Is this about my comment about Calif being the ones who found the vulnerability and not OpenAI? Am I wrong?

nicce 6h ago

Wiz claims they they found it with Gemini? I have no idea who actually found it.

Edit: Apparently both found independently

Noaidi 6h ago

If they can find the vulnerability anyone can. This whole "patch the planet" is marketing trying to cover up for the danger AI is unleashing on internet infrastructure.

Maxious 6h ago

> 1 August 2026: 2 days after OpenAI invites Calif to join its “Patch the Planet” initiative, Ryan Austin finds the RCE paths, tweets a cryptographic hash on 5 August, and submits the bug and working RCE proof-of-concept to PHP between 11 August and 14 August.

https://deadneurons.substack.com/p/php2shell-explained-php2s...

fock 6h ago

yes, they sat on a working exploit for 2 months to hone their magic "this exploits everything"-script. In other words: criminals.

gruez 6h ago

>In other words: criminals.

You're not required to disclose bugs, nor is developing exploits a criminal offense (assuming no intent/conspiracy to hack stuff).

NitpickLawyer 6h ago

No idea what your comment is even about. The researchers that found and reported this did not sit on this for 2 months.

> 1 August 2026 [...] Ryan Austin finds the RCE paths, tweets a cryptographic hash on 5 August, and submits the bug and working RCE proof-of-concept to PHP between 11 August and 14 August.

> 19–24 August 2026: Wiz Research independently collides with the same bug family using Wiz Atlas, Gemini 4 Argon, and GPT-5.6 Sol, reporting its variants on 24 August.

I get some skepticism about marketing copy, but your comment is blatantly wrong and needlessly rude.

fock 6h ago

oh, so you say they only sat on it for a week? And then they exhaustively searched all exploit-paths so they have a demo ready 2 months later?

NitpickLawyer 6h ago

> so you say they only sat on it for a week?

This is absurd, and it shows that you have absolutely 0 idea of how any of this works. Finding a bug and delivering a working RCE 11 days later is absolutely not "sitting on it". This is how this works. You need time to test, exploit, confirm, and so on. Sorry, but just stop being so negative. This can't be healthy for you.

VCFundedGenYer 4h ago

This is an insult to actual security researchers and engineers. What a bunch of nonsense words.

OpenAI consistently doesn't know what they're talking about.

bigfishrunning 48m ago

You're absolutely right! It's not that AI is actually solving any problems, it's that this marketing is a load-bearing part of OpenAI's profit strategy.

yearolinuxdsktp 6h ago

Patch the Planet? Not with OpenAI tools.

How much time will be left in the Defender’s Window between now and an organization getting Daybreak Access?

redanddead 6h ago

Feels like a marketing campaign lol

podgorniy 6h ago

Point me at anything what _these people do_ that is not a marketing or _confusion_ campaign.

openclawuser 6h ago

In 2024 I saw a reddit post answering the question: AI is going to program insert name App.

Response: "What's the prompt?"

Yep. I might take minimum wage interns and make million dollar software(or million dollars in 2023), but they often run into issues that a 5 minute review with me solves.

I do wonder if AI is going to eliminate prompt engineering... It's basically all I have left. I feel like I have magic words.

nemomarx 6h ago

I can't think of how it'll really eliminate prompting, but needing to carefully phrase your language already seems in the way out? Wasn't one of the prompts leading to solving fields problems just "look for fields problems and try very hard" or the equivalent

twosdai 5h ago

Why can't I prompt. "Make me a million dollars, no crime" and it work though?

pixl97 4h ago

I mean you can, but you're asking the wrong question.

What number in line do you expect to be when asking the same prompt.

For example, why wouldn't OpenAI ask that first long before you get a chance at the model?

solyin 3h ago

Because they need to show several billion dollars in revenue. A million dollars a day would be utter failure for them. If they have $122 billion cash on hand, at 3 percent interest, they're getting $10 million a day just in interest.

If they asked their unreleased bot to get a million dollars and it suggests betting on Kalshi, that would be hilarious.

pixl97 3h ago

Again, it's still the wrong question.

Why wouldn't someone with access long before you ask first? For example a model provider like hugging face, or a nation state looking to interrupt some other nations economy?

The problem with any simple question is you're exceptionally unlikely to be the first person to explore the problem space and pick the lowest hanging fruit. It's not impossible, it's just improbable.

Lastly why wouldn't OpenAI ask how to make a million dollars a million times? Or if it's cheap enough for them, how to make $1 a trillion times. There is a reason people talk about AI risks, and one particular risk being that the AI companies no longer need us pesky humans to think for them. They hoover up all the GDP and leave the rest of us to fight for scraps.

cyanydeez 5h ago

Yeah, I was explaining this as magic words. It seems like knowing `pandoc` means you can convert any kind of document into any other kind of document.

Knowing uv means you can scaffold any python project. docker lets you build any infrastructure kit.

Patch the Planet: global response coordination as agents uncover vulnerabilities (openai.com)