At this stage, AI is no longer a tool that enhances your ability to ship code, it has replaced you entirely in that role. You don't control what is shipped, and you can't verify if it's correct. That's a serious problem! As software engineers, we remain accountable for code we no longer fully understand.
Then, what comes next feels less like a new software practice and more like a new religion, where trust has to replaces understanding, and the code is no longer ours to question.
Speak for yourself, I don't ship any code that I don't fully understand. Yes that requires less autonomous AI and less frequent merging.
But I don't even want to think about the disasters that could happen if you really get into the habit of shipping code you can't verify or understand.
Out of interest, what's the speedup between having an LLM write code for you and then having to go through and understand it, vs writing code that you understand immediately because you wrote it?
It depends. If all I want is some prototype or pet code project, my LLM can write most by itself. The speedup could be 10 times or more.
However, if I'd let a LLM write code for my work, I'd have to very thoroughly review it and most likely ask it to rewrite it several times. Each time this would require a new review of course.
There would still be a speed up but I guess at most somewhere around 25%.
In practice I try to combine the best of both worlds. I write some code by myself and rely on my LLM for parts that are not too big and where I expect it to do a pretty good job.
Don't you need to obtain consent before filming random people in the street? I already feel uncomfortable when someone takes a photo in public and I happen to be in it, but this type of device takes things to an entirely different level. With smart glasses, there's no visible cue that you're being recorded. No phone held up, no camera in sight. I'm questioning the legality of this in Europe, where privacy laws tend to be stricter. In the meantime, should I just assume that anyone wearing these glasses is always filming? And would I be within my rights to ask them to stop the moment I notice them?
Note that there is a difference between being allowed to take a photograph, and being allowed to share it. Unless you're threatening or harassing, you're mostly free to photograph as you want. But you might not be allowed to publish it.
Pretty much the same in Finland. You are allowed to film/photograph as much as you want in a public place, but publishing the material might be against the law depending on the contents. Particularly the law regarding "dissemination of information that violates privacy". It's fine to publish a photo of people walking on the street, but you'll probably get into trouble for uploading an arrest to YouTube where the suspect is recognizable.
In a general rule you can record. But sending it to Meta AI would be a AVG (GDPR) violation in the Netherlands if no consent is given as you share it with a third party. There is also the difference of recording a public place with people in the background and clearly recording someone: The first is fine, the second is not (without consent). You also cannot disable the recording light, doing so would put you up for libel en decency lawsuits (and libel and public decency can be criminal, not just misdemeanors).
So if you take a video of specific people looking at flowers at the Keukenhof you would have to ask them for permission if you are recording them primarily and publish it but recording for yourself is fine as it is a clearly public space. If you take a picture of all the flower and catch some people in it in the background you are fine. If you do it in a place where people do not expect it they can ask you to remove the video and they have to (e.g. in a restaurant when you are eating as it is not expected to be recorded there).
There are some exceptions for journalism, law enforcement and public good. I doubt strongly any Meta (AI) post would classify for that.
There is also the small caveat that if you can avoid recording innocent bystanders you must. E.g. putting up a doorbell camera and pointing it to the street instead of your door is bad as it's easily avoidable by putting it top down.
People send their private photos to their private cloud backups with the reasonable expectation that those photos remain private and therefore not a privacy violation.
If it transpired Google or Apple had staff looking through people's cloud photo backups, yes this would be considered a violation because "cloud backup" is framed as a personal solution and not a hosting or processing solution.
Yes, actually the AVG (GDPR) is very broad in what it considers personal data.
Sadly that means it is not enforced well since it is too broad to be enforced in a meaningful way. And therefore it is violated A LOT, both by companies or people since no one can be bothered!
AVG (GDPR) includes the following things as personal data: name, address, phone number, passport photo, information about someone's behavior on websites, allergies, customer or staff numbers, recognizable recordings and more.
Rule of thumb, any information that can be used to relate a specific person.
An important distinction is that you are allowed to film/photograph when you are actively doing it (so the glasses do belong in that category). You're not allowed to set up a camera to autonomously film/photograph outside of your own private property.
Besides that there is the issue of publishing said footage, as others point out.
> you are allowed to film/photograph when you are actively doing it
Does it really count as "actively doing it" when the glasses are constantly filming while you do other stuff.
With a phone/camera people can see you are filming or taking pictures.
In many countries the shutter needs to make a sound when taking pictures.
For video surveilance cameras a noticeable sign or sticker is needed.
US here. Definitely more permissive than any EU nation. Public space typically means free for all in terms of recording[1]. The incident I link is relevant as we are bound to see a whole new bunch of 'content creators' going for various new ways to engage the public.
That would make taking pictures impossible, so no, such a requirement cannot be reasonably() codified into law.
() By reasonably I mean in a way to be actually followed. Of course there are lots of impossible laws created by politicians to cater to their fan base.
These glasses have a light when recording. You can buy many hidden recording glasses that are much more discrete with no light. Are you also paranoid when someone has their smartphone in their shirt pocket with the camera exposed?
On the french trains, you can sit opposite someone else. I'm feeling really uncomfortable when this person scrolls on its phone, with the phone back camera pointing to me for hours.
I sometime ask this person to hide the camera and they generally understand my feeling.
Definitely not.
But when someone looks at me, my gaze is drawn to that person, to say "hello" for instance. I have the same kind of feeling with a camera.
(Maybe if i was living in a town, i would loose this reflex.)
In Germany, you don't need permission for recording image material (including moving images) in public places, though usage of the material might be restricted.
However, audio recording of conversations is prohibited.
Filming is legal. In public spaces (streets, parks), there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy." You do not need permission to point a camera. The exceptions are usually for offensive or harassing type of filming.
Publishing is regulated. In EU, once you share the footage , you are "processing personal data" under GDPR. There are also exceptions where publishing without permission is legal. Legitimate Interest (security footage or incidental background), Public Interest/Journalism, and Artistic Expression.
Generally you must ask permission to publish, not to film. Although asking permission to film is good ethical principle too.
Note that there is a difference between Panoramafreiheit (freedom to record a public building / space with people walking around) versus recording the street before your house with an always-on security camera (almost always forbidden).
Even having a fake camera pointing at a public space can be forbidden as it creates surveilance pressure on people using the space.
That's quite an antagonistic way to request an explanation, particularly as it seems straightforward:
If you needed consent to film people in the street, security cameras (in public places) couldn't be used. They _are_ used. So it must not be the case that you need consent to film people in the street. Assuming there is not just widespread lawbreaking, I suppose.
The difference is if you are actively filming, or the camera is set up to film by itself. Security cameras are in the latter category and therefore can only be used on your own property (you can allow someone else to do it on your own property, such as a security firm).
Depends on a country, but yes, police generally has more privileges in that regard. The laws here are also different for casual public filming vs. permanent camera or otherwise targeted filming (without consent) in public space. It also matters what you do with the material.
I actually don't know if businesses are anything special compared to individuals in that regard. They can, of course, have security cameras filming their private properties (like individuals can) as long as they are open about it. And again, they can't use or spread the material however they want.
Given that the article is from a Swedish publication, you often need prior permission to use a security camera which could take images of the genera public. Much of this is regulated with GDPR.
Only for stationary cameras. Filming/photographing with a non-stationary camera is allowed as long as it is not in a sensitive situation (in their home, in the toilet/changing room/etc).
So I can mount my security camera on a WallE-like chassis to randomly drive around my property and I am no longer under the same strict regulation? What exactly made you come to that conclusion when IMY considers things like dashcams to be under the regulations of privacy and GDPR?
I've been using Claude for a little over a year, but the recent events with DoW are making me want to explore European alternatives. I'm willing to give Devstral 2 a try, but I'm not sure what to expect. In terms of tool calling and coding abilities, should I expect something closer to Sonnet 3.5 or to Sonnet 4.5?
Domestic mass surveillance might feel tolerable when you live in the country conducting it. But how would you feel about other countries adopting similar policies, and thereby mass-surveilling the American people? Because that's exactly what these policies authorize when applied to the rest of the world.
I would feel much better about other countries mass surveillance than the US. China for instance can’t do nearly as much to me as the US justice system can.
Ok so now connect the mass surveillance system to an automated killing system that can blow you up in the grocery store because you're standing in line next to its target.
Given a choice between someone blowing me up because I’m next to a high value asset and worrying about jack booted masked thugs with qualified immunity killing me and being cheered by 40% of the population - I’ll take my chance with China having my info before ICE or the local police.
The way the anthropic statement was written really stood out to me.
How they posture themselves in favour of surveillance for foreign countries or the existence of fully autonomous weapons if they don't threaten US citizen lifes.
I wonder if this is how some non minority of American thinks or was just worded like that to try to appeal to the "most radical patriots"
I'm pretty neutral in this fiasco, but if a company is willing to consider *in principle* providing services to the *Department of War*, they'd better be OK with their services being used to conduct surveillance or kill people of other countries...
I think war is bad and generally a stupid thing to do, but my point is that if they were negotiating terms with the department at all, it's really a given they'd be OK with the stuff you took issue with.
The bad news for American people is that "others" are pretty good at these technologies. When I read an important AI paper chances are all the names on it are non-American, even for papers from American labs. In a real war, this becomes problematic.
Every nation has some bias but I think Americans have power poisoning for being the dominant power for so long. They think they are entitled to do anything and believe they are the good guys in the history. Well...
How else do you suggest common folks are supposed to view world, or well anything?
Americans do the same, hence whole world got ttump. 95% of the world aint US, so such logic is even easier for almost whole mankind - is US force of good or evil? Different places would give you different answers, and most americans would not like the actual spread these days.
Their "power poisoning" is warranted. The USA's military capabilities dwarf those of the rest of the world. There is not a single country on earth that can stand up to America militarily.
We are lucky that they never went full Roman Empire on us. That's only due to their own restraint. We may see them falter increasingly often as their economic power gets eroded by other nations. Just look at Venezuela.
Other countries can't send armed thugs to my door over petty stuff like my local government can.
Nobody in the history of ever has been concerned that the agents of some foreign country may know what they read, who they associate with or what kind of penis pills they buy or whatever, the threat has always been that those local enough to do violence on you might come into that information.
I don't think it will feel even remotely tolerable in the US. I've been heavily critical of Trump on a regular basis on the public internet ever since he showed up 10 years ago. I doubt a government surveillance AI would miss this. Of course, there are probably millions of people like me, but given the behavior of the government recently, I really have to wonder what they might do to people like me once we've been put on a list.
On my personal coding agent I've introduced a setup phase inside skills.
I distribute my skills with flake.nix and a lock file. This flake installs the required dependencies and set them up. A frontmatter field defines the name of secrets that need to be passed to the flake.
As it is, it works for me because I trust my skill flakes and skills are static in my system:
-I build an agent docker image for the agent in which I inject the skills directory.
-Each skill is setup when building the image
-Secret are copied before the setup phase and removed right after
I pay a Max subscription since a long time, I like their model but I hate their tools:
- Claude Desktop looks like a demo app. It's slow to use and so far behind the Codex app that it's embarassing.
- Claude Code is buggy has hell and I think I've never used a CLI tool that consume so much memory and CPU. Let's not talk about the feature parity with other agents.
- Claude Agent SDK is poorly documented, half finished, and is just thin wrapper around a CLI tool…
Oh and none of this is open source, so I can do nothing about it.
My only option to stay with their model is to build my own tool. And now I discover that using my subscription with the Agent SDK is against the term of use?
I'm not going to pay 500 USD of API credits every months, no way. I have to move to a different provider.
I haven't used opencode but pi agent runs rings around claude code. Never eats tons of CPU on big outputs, no flickering, open source, tree-based context instead of claude's linear context, easy to toggle collapsing/expanding tool outputs, built for extension with runtime reloading of extensions and skills, etc. You can easily build your own amp-code like handoff mechanism, customize the UI (i see models' edit diffs syntax-highlighted with delta, and just added a keybind to list session-edited files + files from git status in fzf), etc.
Meanwhile with Claude Code I've had to get claude to decompile the editor (extract JS from the bun executable) _twice_ to diagnose weird things like why some documented config flags were not taking effect.
Opus is great - but I'd rather use a different model than be forced back into Claude Code.
I regret ever promoting that Claude Code crap. I remember when it was nothing but glowing reviews everywhere. Honestly AI companies should stick to what they are good at: direct API interface to powerful models.
We are heading toward a $1000/month model just to use LLMs in the cloud.
I got so tired of cursor that I started writing down every bug I encountered. The list is currently at 30 entries, some of them major bugs such as pressing "apply" on changes not actually applying changes or models getting stuck in infinite loops and burning 50 million tokens.
It's not HTML purism. It's simply recognizing that HTML and CSS have evolved a lot and many things don't need (or are close to not need) JS anymore.
This shouldn't be taken as an anti-JS article, everyone benefits from these gradial improvements. Especially our users who can now get a uniform experience.
Then, what comes next feels less like a new software practice and more like a new religion, where trust has to replaces understanding, and the code is no longer ours to question.
reply