My average eventually made it to about 3900, and then stagnated between 3600-3900. I'm curious if this is universal behavior or not. I'm up to about 5k steps.
Yeah folks on this thread mistakenly thought it was against ToS and flagged it to GitHub. I’m confident and trust GitHub will bring it back once they look into it. It’s not a ToS violation.
This idea is great in concept, and I think it's important to state that, but the GitHub Actions stuff is against TOS iirc + they will need to address that pretty quickly.
ghost aligns with ToS: it's a CLI porcelain driving the user’s own GitHub account to use Actions minutes for their own dev workflows.
There was abuse on this thread tho - not just the fake accusations against ghost and me, but people abusing the GH flag/report button on its repos, leading to them being auto-disabled. I trust GH will restore it once they look at it.
In the meantime - if there’s a specific clause you think applies, you're welcome to share. I think it's a classic case of crowd madness.
I believe this has the same issue as the last article that had these claims.
We can assume that Mythos was given a much less pointed prompt/was able to come up with these vulnerabilities without specificity, while smaller models like Opus/GPT 5.4 had to be given a specific area or hints about where the vulnerability lives.
Or did they hire a team of cybersecurity specialists with the vast amount of funding at their disposal? I don't think its reasonable to assume they used none of their other resources to search for something that could be a very profitable marketing campaign.
They say the focused prompts come from a previous step where the same model "planned" how to discover bugs in said repo. So it might be something like "here's a repo, plan how to find bugs, split work into manageable chunks" -> spawn_agent("prompt" + chunk).
I'm glad that Atari was willing to compromise at all. I'm happy with the updated response, and hope that it helps others understand the nuance of the situation. Anyone can still go download the main release from the official site.
How are people supposed to understand the "nuance of the situation" when they aren't even sharing it? What is the problem to begin with? Why can't both projects continue to exist independently?
The bundling might feel necessary from Atari's side because OpenTTD would compete with Atari's re-release on platforms like Steam and GoG (unlike on OpenTTD's website, where you're already at the end of the funnel for OpenTTD specifically and therefore Atari doesn't feel like they're losing a sale).
The problem is copyright won't expire on the 1995 game until some time next century, while a French company that acquired Atari's name and copyrights 20 years ago is now asserting their exclusive rights over the IP.
OpenTTD started from the ip they now own, and it's possible Atari could try and prove that in court. I don't know if they would win, but why spend the legal fees here?
It may say more about me than the person writing these type of README's, but if I see more than one or two emojis in a README, I immediately assume it was fully generated rather than written.
Very interesting. I would be curious to understand how granular these updates are being applied to CC + what might be causing things like this. I feel like I can notice a very small degradation but have compensated with more detailed prompts (which I think, perhaps naively, is offsetting this issue).
