Mastodawn

This "careful" "AI Safety" company that just accidentally leaked its entire source code to the world is the one that African governments are entering into agreements with to include in infrastructures from health care to god knows what.

These are the products people have to use to make sure that they don't get dinged in their performance reviews for "not using AI."

These are the products teachers have to use in schools so that "students aren't left behind."

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/apr/01/anthropic-claudes-code-leaks-ai

Claude’s code: Anthropic leaks source code for AI software engineering tool

Nearly 2,000 internal files were briefly leaked after ‘human error’, raising fresh security questions at the AI company

The Guardian

Show thread

Timnit Gebru (she/her).1d ago

I appreciated this article by @mttaggart
infosec.exchange.

I get the temptation especially in this world we're all living in where you have to produce something super fast all the time.

But my question is, what are people's arguments for how functioning software can be created with these tools?

What about new architectures, new ways of thinking, new programming languages, etc? Who will create those?

https://taggart-tech.com/reckoning/

I used AI. It worked. I hated it.

I used Claude Code to build a tool I needed. It worked great, but I was miserable. I need to reckon with what it means.

Show thread

GunChleoc

@timnitGebru I just thought of an analogy: You can't become a composer of bagpipe music without learning how to play the pipes first, because you won't understand the physical limitations otherwise.

You can't become a bagpipe player by listening to bagpipe music and never picking up the instrument. Learning how to play is hard and it takes years.

There's no way you can evaluate and fix LLM output without knowing the subject matter really well, so you need to spend the time to learn the trade.