Isn’t the real danger now not the ability to find security vulnerabilities, but rather, the ability of anyone to ask an LLM agent to rewrite your open source project in another language and thus work around whatever license your project has?
This is happening quite a lot actually. People just feed an existing project into their agent harness and have it regenerate more or less the same with a few tweaks and then they publish it.
I'm not sure how this works in the legal sense. A human could ostensibly study an existing project and then rewrite it from scratch. The original work's license shouldn't apply as long as code wasn't copy & pasted, right?
What happens when an automated tool does the same? It's basically just a complicated copy & paste job.
A lot of open source projects already have licenses that allow forking and selling the fork, it hasn't been a problem most of the time... there's a lot more to operating open source as a business beyond just shipping the code
> A lot of open source projects already have licenses that allow forking and selling the fork
If we go by the OSI's definition, a project that doesn't allow this is not "open source". So all open source projects -- not just "a lot" -- allow this.
Yep, precisely this. There are many languages out there that would have remained niche if it wasn't for a company sponsoring their development. Go is one of those. Rust too, and it just barely managed to get the critical mass it needed, likely because Mozilla had nowhere near the might of Google.
Nim had a real chance at gaining a foothold, it just needed a company to back it. I think sadly that ship has sailed by now.
Sad to see this. I had so much fun implementing a http server (called httpbeast) from scratch to get as far up these benchmarks as possible.
I do agree with others here that it was possible to game them, but it still gave a good indication of the performance bracket a language was in (and you could check if interpreted languages were cheating via FFI pretty easily).
It's completely different. Shaheds are low cost one way attack drones. They're basically just very cost efficient cruise missiles with fresh marketing (and to be fair, the cost efficiency is a true categorical difference).
These drones are "helpers" for fighter jets. It's a type of role that is still in development (no one has an operational collaborative combat aircraft as far as I understand), both technically and in concept.
But the basic idea is that you'll have drones that can somewhat keep up with your fighter jets and help it do stuff that might be too risky. Maybe fly ahead, or be the one with the active emissions or sensors or whatever. Or maybe it's just a way to increase the amount of ordnance/sensors you can fly per sortie / generate from a given amount of training/flight hours in a year.
Super interesting charts there. What's really interesting to me is that the GPU prices (which also includes RAM) didn't see such a massive increase in price as the RAM itself. Anyone know why that is?
I held my nose and bought an RTX 5070 Ti for $100 over MSRP in January. The very next week the same model was up $200. It turns out that NVIDIA had been subsidizing retail graphics cards with its Open Pricing Program. Not the whole story, but it may help explain the relative flatness of the graph until the end of January.
The other part of it is that the MSRP already baked in a substantial increase from the previous generation. While RAM was near rock-bottom pricing when this hit, current-gen GPUs definitely were not.
A $1500 5800 only has 16GB which would be $250 if you compare it against the DDR6 graph on that page. Given that there's only 2 top tier GPU manufacturers at most, they were probably already not very BOM cost sensitive.
I think that we are going to see more and more of this. To the point where most interactions you have online will likely be with bots. So I started building something that actually has a chance of fixing it: a social network for only humans.
reply