> new-ish Mozilla CEO, Anthony Enzor-DeMeo, is clearly an AI booster having talked about wanting to make Firefox into a “modern AI browser”

Ah... That's why they put free vpn into v150 - more human behaviors for training :))

> I guess if you run the source code through the model a 10,000 times, some useful stuff falls out.

But you might also get a lot of non-useful stuff which you'll need to sort out.

Hackernews has also been completely co-opted by boosters.

So much that i don't really visit anymore after 15 years of use.

It's a bizarre situation with billions in marketing and PR, astroturfing and torrents of fake news with streams of comments beneath them with zero skepticism and an almost horrifying worship of these billion dollar companies.

Something completely flipped here at some point, i don't know if it's because YC is also heavily pro these companies, and embedded with them, requiring YC applicants to slop code their way in, then cheering about it.

Either way it's incredibly sad and remind me of the worst casino economy, nft's, crypto, web3 while there's actually an interesting core, regex on steroids with planning aspects, but it's constantly oversold.

I say that as a daily user of Claude Max for over a year.

Funny because that is exactly what Edge calls itself...

Globally agreed excepted for the "harmless" bit. Hackers are good these days, and these apparently innocuous bugs can be exploited in creative ways

Feel like LLMs main sue in these situations would be to work through these essentially nothing-burger issues? If they're essentially just time consuming to solve, rather than problematic, they should be fairly trivial for them to hopefully solve reliably enough right? I'm very doubtful on AI for actual issues a lot of times, but in my experience, it rarely finds bigger issues from scratch without a lot of extra context such as some hints towards what and where the issue is, and essentially full context explaining any relevant parts to it. However I do find that it often find minor issues when the context is small and contained, or as mentioned when it knows what the issue is, and the solution is simple.

I'm sure there's already plenty of work towards these things, but do bigger code bases completely shut out AI right now, due to the extreme amount of unsolicited PRs they get from AIs? I'd imagine if they were coordinated and structured properly on these things, they'd be more likely to be seen as an acceptable thing? I'm just spitballing, never worked on any real open source project, especially one where there's thousands if not millions of users and several issues every day, so my view on AI usage in these are mostly just from some instances where they ban all AI PRs and stuff like that because they are often really bad.

While the text seems to be at least AI-supported, I think the research is still interesting. Whether that was done mostly by the author or an AI still, does not change much to me at least.

I'd appreciate some sort of disclaimer at the start of each article whether it's AI written/assisted or not. But I guess authors understand that it will diminish the perceived value of their work/part.

I have a friend that literally takes topics he wants/needs to know more about... has AI generate a discussion format conversation as a deep dive explanation on multiple PoV, then outputs it through TTS tooling so he can listen to it while traveling.

It's kind of crazy... but I can kind of see the appeal of getting just what you are looking for on something.

That said, actually churning that out for other people to consume feels very wrong... I absolutely hate the slop generated content on YouTube. I want a lot of historical content, so don't always mind it when it's genuine/factual... but when there are obvious content errors, it becomes more annoying than anything.

Thats the thing. You didn't prompt it. Someone is saying you should read this. Otherwise you never would have prompted it

It certainly promised more in the beginning than it actually delivered.

It all starts to feel like letting those “before the youtube video” ads run too long without skipping.

A hook you know people would like to know the answer to… followed by utter horseshit.

Probably you're right, but given the browser usage-distribution, I reckon most hackers wouldn't care about firefox at this point and solely concentrate on chrome. I reckon firefox users are on average, more tech savvy and given a hack, would be able to help themselves/find out about the hack quicker than the average chrome user.

I think a certain level of hype is warranted for a model that can autonomously discover complex 27-year-old 0-days in OpenBSD for $20K[0]. We don't yet know what this does to the balance of attack/defense in OSS security, and we cannot know until the capability is widespread. My most hopeful guess is that it looks heavily in favor of attackers in the first 6-12 months while the oldest 0-days are still waiting to be discovered, before tipping in favor of defenders as the price goes down for Mythos-level models and the practice of using them for vulnerability review becomes widespread.

The absolute best case is at we end up with similar situation to modern cryptography, which is clearly in favor of defenders. One can imagine a world where a defender can run a codebase review for $X compute and patch all the low-hanging fruit, to the point where anything that remains for an attacker would cost $X*100000 (or some other large multiplier) to discover.

[0] https://red.anthropic.com/2026/mythos-preview/

In the same article you linked:

> Due to concerns about large language models being used to generate deceptive, biased, or abusive language at scale, we are only releasing a much smaller version of GPT‑2 along with sampling code .

7 years later, these concerns seem pretty legit.

You can't just use a linter to fix buffer overflows, or people would have done it already.