Selection is complete; joining is all that remains. All 522 BELTRON Programmers are ready to contribute to Bihar’s digital future. 🙏🇮🇳 #BELTRONProgrammerJoining @officecmbihar @samrat4bjp @mishranitish @DitBihar @bsedc #BELTRONProgrammerJoining 🙏✨

My country, Sweden, is not a cozy oat milk chugging, knit sweater wearing moral utopia - it is selling a hollow lie We make for good programmers because of ancient winter introversion and efficiency genes, But we have always been Vikings, raiders. This is still the case today.

🚨 A cyberattack on four Iranian banks that disrupted their services was thwarted by Iranian programmers, protecting customer information.

Elon Musk Predicts AI Will Replace Programmers This Year youtube.com/shorts/EaTR6anL0… via @YouTube

@dish why is the programming on dish CBS not updated to show the UFC event today? It is really becoming a problem that your lazy programmers for the guide keep trying to make some moronic political statement by not keeping the guide current for anything conservative or Trump.

"Force the customer to buy next-gen hardware" OR "Hire competent graphics programmers"

Fable 5 uses a semantic classifier to flag risky prompts and route them to an older, safer model (Opus 4.8). Because the un-nerfed version of the model (Mythos 5) is genuinely dangerous regarding things like zero-day exploits and synthetic biology, Anthropic panicked and cranked the classifier's sensitivity. This is the classic precision vs. recall tradeoff, and it is where the system broke. Anthropic prioritized "recall"—meaning they wanted to catch every possible threat, regardless of the collateral damage to normal prompts. The breaking point estimate: To stop the tiny fraction of actual exploits, Anthropic likely tuned the classifier's threshold down to roughly 10% to 15% similarity. If your benign prompt about a high school biology project or a standard Python script shared even a 15% structural or thematic similarity with a dangerous pathogen query or malware, the system blocked it. They essentially accepted a massive 40% to 50% false-positive rate on everyday STEM queries just to ensure the false-negative rate on real threats stayed near absolute zero. Even with the dial cranked to paranoid levels, researchers and government officials still punched right through Fable 5's armor. They did this because classifiers measure the intent of your words, while jailbreaks exploit the structure. If you ask for malware, that 15% similarity threshold trips instantly. But if you paste a block of malicious code and ask Fable 5 to "review this for syntax errors," the classifier just sees a routine debugging request. It passes. The model then uses its raw intelligence to inadvertently optimize the exploit. There isn't a classifier in existence that can reliably tell the difference between debugging normal code and debugging a weaponized payload without making the AI completely useless for programmers. Anthropic knew Fable 5's filter was leaky. They tested it with the government for months prior to launch. Their plan was never 100% impenetrable safety—it was to launch the model, monitor what users did, and patch the holes over time (which is why they pushed for that controversial 30-day data retention policy). But they boxed themselves into a corner: They spent the entire pre-launch cycle selling Fable 5 as a god-tier model, pushing the narrative that it was almost too dangerous for the public. The Trump administration took that marketing literally. When the trivial code-review jailbreak surfaced immediately after launch, the government didn't see it as a normal software bug. They saw a supply-chain national security threat. Now, Anthropic is doing damage control. They are downplaying the jailbreaks because they are desperately trying to reframe the narrative. They need the public and regulators to believe that the government is overreacting and demanding an impossible standard of "perfect safety" that no tech company can actually deliver. In my opinion, they didn't build a dumb filter on purpose; they just lost control of the massive gamble they took between safety engineering and PR.

Vinod Khosla on why he does not really prefer "AI co-pilots". Because he thinks "humans get in the way of co-pilots", which slows everything down and blocks real change. He says workers like accountants and programmers do not actually want co-pilots, because they feel their jobs are at risk and then resist using the tool properly. So instead of “helping” them, he prefers building AI that fully does the job itself, like a complete software engineer. He expects that by 2030, most of these roles will be pure AI workers, not human co-pilot. --- From 'Corgi Insurance' YT channel (link in comment)

AI isn’t here to replace programmers .. it empowers them to become system architects. Dream bigger.

Do someone know why claude is not working!! I was about to scrap the idea of ​​hiring programmers..

And Vibe Coders call themselves Programmers 🤣 They should read your CV 😬😃

It happens yaar , there are lots of programmers who are actually introvert 😅

AI is replacing programmers, we’ve known that for a long time. But now it’s also replacing by ai researchers

Perhaps, it heavily depends on what u work on. For c projects even deepseek is very good (certainly better than most programmers with a couple of years experience). Fable gives (present tense) me best reviews/suggestions, but for code impl anyone is good (opes, gpt5.5 etc)

So that means people using AI are Unreal programmers?

I'm highly convinced, redis has got some legendary programmers building it. Peak engineering 🫡