Thomas Gilray retweeted
The results are in: AI invitations are insufficient for establishing vampiric right of entry. However, there have been several cases of whales successfully inviting vampires into aquariums
Thomas Gilray retweeted
Teaching Softwate Foundations today, we got to the part where Collatz is defined using an inductive proposition. So I got to dryly make the joke "this has been an open math problem since 1937, so probably it will get solved next week"
Thomas Gilray retweeted
New blog post on PL perspectives by Max Willsey:
Equality Saturation: An “incomplete” project
blog.sigplan.org/2026/10/01/…
Thomas Gilray retweeted
This is going to sound dramatic but I am genuinely starting to think that we’re going to see pre-AI software as a kind of “how did they even do it” endeavor. People will look at Linux like the pyramids
Thomas Gilray retweeted
they had degrees. that’s literally where we get the concept of degree from
You’re telling me men without degrees, using nothing but hammers and chisels, built this?
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
The Duomo di Milano's construction, from 1386 onward, was directed by the Veneranda Fabbrica del Duomo. It employed trained European master masons, architects, and engineers using advanced mathematics, cranes, scaffolding, and specialized workshops for marble and metalwork.
getty.edu/cona/CONAFullS…
Thomas Gilray retweeted
A lot of stuff about AI is kind of alarmist when you drill down into it. But this is one that does just seem plainly evil in a way that sort of sucks
I had some refactors sitting in /tmp folders pre-review and the computer rebooted overnight. I ask both Sol and Fable in new sessions after a vague description of the work if it can be recovered. "Sorry about this." Both models quickly recovered it, however
Fable: *recovers files back to a new /tmp directory, points this out but says 'that no longer matters' because everything is 're-derivable from our design choices'*
Fable: "No apology needed"
Thomas Gilray retweeted
There’s a big, under-appreciated reason why people may have very different experiences and opinions about using AI for work — are they using it for tasks they’re already an expert at, or tasks they can’t do themselves? The former leads to a *growth cycle* and the latter leads to a *dependence spiral*.
When I use AI to do something I’m an expert at, like coding, I treat it as a tool. I can build quickly, maintaining an understanding of the code, knowing that if necessary, I can fix the code myself. It feels empowering. It frees up my time to think about the complex, judgment-oriented parts of software engineering that I can’t or won’t delegate to AI. That means my own skills improve rapidly, and I get to climb the ladder of complexity and develop higher-level skills, much more so than when I write the code myself. I feel in control. I can lock in and achieve a flow state — when AI is working, I’m reviewing, building understanding, and planning the next steps. I never get the feeling that the tool is about to replace me. This is the growth cycle.
(Of course, the growth cycle is not automatic. I still need to exercise agency to use AI responsibly. But it’s the same challenge with any productivity-enhancing technology, and those who’ve navigated such transitions before are well-equipped to navigate it with AI as well.)
On the other hand, if I use it for tasks I don’t understand and haven’t learned to perform myself, I have no choice but to treat it as a superintelligence. If something breaks, the best I can do is ask AI to fix it and hope for the best. I generally can’t evaluate the quality of the output myself. The only way to find out if it's any good is if and when the work is ultimately reviewed by an actual expert. The experience is confusing, unsettling and disempowering. And forget about flow state. By over-relying on AI, I risk losing whatever skill I had at the task in the first place, even if it boosts productivity in the short term. This is the dependence spiral.
It’s no wonder that entry-level workers and students preparing to enter the workforce find themselves in a bind. To compete with the AI-enabled productivity of more seasoned workers, they must adopt AI themselves, but doing so risks the dependence spiral. I have some thoughts on solutions that I will share in later posts, but I think having a clear diagnosis of the problem is a useful first step.
Thomas Gilray retweeted
NEW: malware developers added nuclear & biological weapons text to to their spyware.
Goal? To trigger LLM safety refusals... so that their spyware wouldn't be analyzed by an AI security scanner.
Cleanest practical example I can think of for why over-indexing on first order safety alignment is risky.
When closed (and open) models ship with aggressive refusals, they will be sprinkled with second-order blindspots that attackers will discover...and exploit.
We are only in the earliest days of attackers leveraging these features, and it wouldn't surprise me if users systems that need to handle complex cybersecurity issues demand that models be less safety-blunted.
In the weeds: @SocketSecurity's post also shows why intention matters in how you design a malware analysis pipeline to avoid prompt manipulation.
H/T to colleagues that shared this with me socket.dev/blog/mini-shai-hu…
Great visiting @krismicinski @StarGazerMiao and Co here at Syracuse U today!
Thomas Gilray retweeted
Replying to @krismicinski
“It difficult to get a man to understand something, when his h-index depends upon his not understanding it.”
Thomas Gilray retweeted
Are you interested in worst-case optimal joins, high-performance analytic reasoning, or logic programming? I am having a seminar in upstate NY this summer (June 3-6). Please get in contact (industry/academia/etc. welcome) if this sounds like a fit! (Cost is $1.05k)



















