let's not forget that these major LLMs are all the children of corporate hyper-piracy en masse, none of them are ethical even in origin unless you're talking about the pre-product company charter kind of ethics, like google .
Last I heard, claude was the model powering maven when it bombed that school. Most aren't up-to date on that because anthropic launders their culpability through palanntir. Anthropic is better at optics not ethics.
No matter what you say, you know yourself the truth that the DoW wanted to go over the red lines of anthropic and they said no, while openai said yes. This is as clear as day to everyone and you are just lying yourself to believe something else.
You use the term piracy, which potentially hints at ur biases.
American IP laws aren’t universal, and last I checked neither is it popular in Silicon Valley.
Institutions surrounding dealing with IP Piracy is an American strong arm attempt to own the unownable and to use Russel conjugates to make the flagrant attempt seem just.
Sorry, but what is the philosophical niche of openai really? Obtain money at all cost? No red lined when using your modele in war? Work for scam altman?
Wiz customer here, when fully implemented it provides an incredibly detailed and comprehensive view of your infrastructure.
I'm curious how much of that information is going to pass between Wiz and Google Cloud product/sales. It's effectively x-ray vision into some huge workloads running on their competitors.
Apparently the cybersec bigwigs at our company love it, but for me I have to write a detailed explaination why another 'incident report' the clueless cybersecurity guys keep bothering me with is actually nonsense.
There are a lot of cybersecurity people that really know nothing about actual security and just rely on what their tools tell them. And products like Wiz love to "prove" their value by raising tons of red flags.
This is especially true for vulnerability management, which is basically Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf as a Service. The entire CVE ecosystem used to be great, but now it's turned into resume-driven-development where people exaggerate the severity of a vulnerability in order to have a CVSS 9.8 on their resume.
Probably a diversification play and a play to see out bigger contracts. If you've worked in the FEDRamp space, you may be aware that Wiz (last a checked, a year or so ago) is one of the few and possibly ownly player certified to operate in FedRAMP Medium/High deployments operating with the technology it does (eBPF instrumentation).
If you think Google is capable of making a singular coherent decision on a topic like this, you're dreaming. There's likely multiple competing visions.
That said: the goal with Google M&A remains the same as always. Take competition off the board. I don't know this company or how they compete with Google, but 80% chance that's the play.
They are culturally incapable of merging other people's tech into their own stack and have both the tendency to rewrite everything from scratch on their own bespoke technologies and also internal engineering teams that will bristle at having a foreign body invade their cathedral.
You could say it would be talent acquisition but most everyone who comes from a startup walks as soon as their golden handcuffs loosen and they can find something else to do. Going from startup to Google is usually torturous.
Been through this 15 years ago. I don't think anything has changed.
> goal with Google M&A remains the same as always. Take competition off the board. I don't know this company or how they compete with Google, but 80% chance that's the play
I don't think that's true here (what is the competing google product exactly?) or generally in cloud acquisitions, that generally buy into their platform missing features
The competing Google features are not a distinct product with its own name, but rather many separate features one can enable, like container image scanning. Collectively, it doesn't do all that Wiz offers, but it's still there.
Thats the entire purpose, the reality is that large corporations are increasingly “multi cloud” and Google wants to have an offering for them and for companies that are on AWS and Azure to be able to move some of their workloads to GCP.
AWS and GCP also made a joint announcement about multi cloud networking for a similar reason
They grossly overpaid if they aren't keeping it cloud agnostic. It's impressive software, but if it's only compatible with GCP it will not survive in this space.
If there are growth opportunities for the company, selectively choosing the top 90% YoY, minimizing backfills (in theory...) will result in a company full of high achievers that can execute on that growth vision.
If the company is shifting into maintenance mode, cutting 40% of the staff is the right move, but definitely hurts shareholders b/c they valued the company as growth, not maintenance.
Sometimes I feel like “shareholder first” mentality has gone a bit too far. Most of the majority shareholders are a handful of people who have too much money, they don’t really put in any work, but are more than happy to put people out of work if it meant they’d get a bit more money.
I am just saying that the decision was not some kind of inevitable result of forces beyond their control. They just made a business decision to line their pockets better.
not the op, but this is what i did too and bypassed the designer. I iterated with nano banana and gave the result to the company that builds the kitchen. the middleman is gone now.
reply