What's weird is that Google, Anthropic and OpenAI are claiming the model is the powerhouse, when what Aisle is stating is very much not the case.
It almost seems like a coordinated effort (Google in January, Anthropic and OAI in April) building out gated models that will eventually be very expensive. Yet, here we are: Aisle is saying that's not required to get there.
I don't think it's weird at all. It seems to me the Frontier providers are just trying to find, still unsuccessfully, a moat to make their unsustainable business model... Well. Sustainable.
I agree that the apocalyptic messaging about mythos is eye-rolling, but the thesis of the article that "the moat is the system, not the model" is weird because the point is that the model is the whole system. A little Bash loop that just tells the model to "look at this file" for every file is clearly not a "moat" of a system
Is it, though? In a way: yes. But look at where the focus of LLMs has gone: agentic frameworks. Yet, we see all of the models continually being compared against benchmarks that can easily be gamed by the model itelf [0].
There's no great way to garner the quality / efficacy of something non-deterministic that you can't trust, at least not currently. And I wouldn't be surprised that the providers haven't known that their LLMs could possibly be cheating for a while now.
On one hand they're saying: these models are so apocalyptic if everyone had them, and then on the other hand showcasing how their models are sweeping the floor on benchmarks. So which is it? Personally I don't believe any of these companies at this point, especially when they make claims that are non-public and wrapped in NDAs that benefit their bottom line.
While I agree this is true of coding, there are other domains and paradigms in which the loop is more involved than a bash loop.
Realizing this fact explains:
1. why software development is first to get disrupted by AI
2. other domains that are easily loopable like contract review are also quite easy to deploy AI into, so you get all these "AI for Law" running around doing essentially the same thing
3. domains that are not easily loopable are much harder to figure out leading people to believe AI can't be useful, when in fact it's a failure of the application layer
You realize that SOUL.md is nothing more than prompt injection, right? It's not a magical configuration file that gives an LLM a "soul". It's just anthropomorphizing a part of the prompt. It's also an expanded burn on tokens and, potentially, your money.
But if you think you need an agent framework to use a prompt you're going to love this one simple trick...
This is preemption, I believe, in the US for what's coming. Given the states trying to ram in "age verification" (mass surveillance propaganda, same agenda as CSAM) I no doubt believe that the only VPNs the USG wants people to have access to are corporate (easy entry point) and pwn'd VPNs [0] (in the media lately).
I just had this conversation today. It's hilarious that things like Skills and Soul and all of these anthropomorphized files could just be a better laid out set of configuration files. Yet here we are treating machines like pets or worse.
> There's a lot about Persona's design, MCPs, vulnerabilities, data leaks, but nothing proving they use it for mass surveillance.
And this is where I'd say I disagree. There's nothing about Peter Thiel, and his current business focus, that shows anyone he's not in the business of surveillance. Look at the company he keeps and then align that with many of the things Peter and who he surrounds himself with have said publicly. Thiel is tied to Palantir and Alex Karp. That relationship alone should tell you very clearly that, even if Thiel wasn't actually in the game of surveillance (opinion: he is) he would be very much associated with supporting it.
Karp said: “I love the idea of getting a drone and having light fentanyl-laced urine spraying on analysts that tried to screw us.”
Yeah, sure... I mean I can't imagine the fact that Thiel is tied at the hip to Palantir that he doesn't have an agenda with it other than data analytics and, what, ad rev? Right.
Thiel said, publicly, that everyone should be concerned about surveillance AI [0]. Let's call spade a spade. Thiel is in the business of surveillance whether or not there's some poor LLM generated sites stating that is the case, but then using that as the basis to give Thiel a pass on this because: not enough evidence here.
Thiel is a big part of what's wrong with his class. He's worried about something that he wants to control. He's not actually worried about you or I though. He's worried about someone else having the full surveillance view and so he's aimed to build and be part of that. So, maybe, we shouldn't give Thiel a pass just because he hasn't fully proven himself to be the person that the world paints him into a picture of.
That's cute, but they've taken his money. To say they've never interacted with him is disingenuous. And... Are we really going to default to a perspective of trust from Persona? Nobody should trust them by default as they've proven nothing to the public with regard to trustworthiness.
I have a few accounts but have been avoiding OpenCode with my Pro/Max accounts because I had heard some were being banned. Have only been using Anthropic models through OpenRouter, but it ends up being cost prohibitive for anything reasonably complex. But, I haven't received emails in either account around the change. Anthropic probably figures that it's less ideal to draw attention to it if a user isn't using it in that way. Personally I'm not a fan of what they're doing and will likely drop them and go out of my way to find a different option and move away from their lock-in strategy. They're really no different than OpenAI at this point (for the worst).
I feel like articles like this do Tailscale a disservice to a certain degree. Most people know Tailscale helps with managing the mesh of connected devices. And as many people have said here you can do this manually with Wireguard, Netbird, Nebula, ZeroTier and many others. Why Tailscale is so helpful is the ACL system. I have about 40 devices connected to my Tailnet and depending on tags devices can or can't access direct communication and also certain exit node networks. Traditional VPNs generally suck because you dump out of a host and have flat access to everything. Tailscale allows you to segment access without disrupting general Internet access with minimal friction and ACLs allow segmentation to happen at the user / device level. Most people aren't using Tailscale ACLs, in fact I rarely hear it discussed. Also the article fails to mention Tailscale Peer Relays [0] which decreases the dependency on DERP relays significantly and are controlled by, you guessed it, ACLs.
The article does list what Tailscale adds on top of WireGuard:
> WireGuard by itself is mostly the data plane. Tailscale adds the control plane on top: identity/SSO, peer discovery, NAT traversal coordination, ACL distribution, route distribution (including exit node default routes), MagicDNS, and fast device revocation.
I think you missed the point. There's nothing in the article going into any of why this would help differentiate Tailscale from plain-old-Wireguard. Simply saying this and moving on is not that.
It almost seems like a coordinated effort (Google in January, Anthropic and OAI in April) building out gated models that will eventually be very expensive. Yet, here we are: Aisle is saying that's not required to get there.
I don't think it's weird at all. It seems to me the Frontier providers are just trying to find, still unsuccessfully, a moat to make their unsustainable business model... Well. Sustainable.
reply