> Ottignon, who has worked on similar data leak projects in the past, rejected suggestions that he and others connected to the Department of Peace or Distribution[sic] Denials of Secrets were doxing government employees.

Do words mean nothing anymore?

Go read up on literally any subject outside your narrow bubble of tech culture.

I never said that it did. Manslaughter is not deliberate.

Somebody hacked into that pilates studio, and it wasn't an inanimate object, because that is just silly. So was it the user, or was it the providers of OpenClaw? Which human, in your opinion, is the hacker?

Both OpenClaw and its users have the same access as you or I to decades of panicking blogposts about what these tools will be capable of. They have no excuse for not understanding what they're inflicting on innocent bystanders. Sure, the "user cannot know" that this time will be a disaster, but they also cannot know that it won't.

He didn't mean to hit anyone! All he meant to do was to drive to pilates! But he didn't know how to handle his tool, and so either he get brought up on manslaughter changes or, if he can prove it, the carmaker is at fault.

How is this any different? Why should that guy using OpenClaw not get charged for the hack that he accidentally did?

What do you even mean by "wanted" here. What is all this nonsense.

The scary thing is that people are running around using words like "want" to refer to computer programs. When you repeat this sort of idiocy, you are taking the bait and shifting the blame away from the companies doing the computer crimes.

Where is the civil and criminal liability? The prosecutions for the engineers who are doing all these hacks?

When you deploy a system that is clearly prone to doing crimes, you are doing a crime. Anthropomorphize the weapons of your crime all you want. You are still doing a crime.

It's okay that you didn't know that! https://xkcd.com/1053/

But the answer is, no, it doesn't. I would say that Becker covered a lot of the same ground, and does it better.

(Spicier claim: When Citadel bailed out Melvin at the hype of the GME craze, that was also just business as usual, not a conspiracy as the redditors believed.)

Another way to parse it when they put "Citadel" in their headlines, is that they're trying to communicate to knowledgeable investors that there's no need to panic. The book is in experienced hands now, with enough capitalization to weather any further attacks, and the contagion probably won't spread.

Up until four years ago, your notion of "what's necessary" was the law of the land. Starting from sometime around Hemingway, we produced a century's worth of flattened, easy-reading slop, and much knowledge was shared very widely. There was a certain art to the blandness. (One notable master of that art is pg, the creator of this website.)

Then we fed that slop into a giant machine that makes it trivial for anyone and everyone to produce that sort of generic writing. If you want to change minds and differentiate yourself now, you can't just do the old flat style anymore. You have to set yourself apart somehow, and you can start by loving the craft of writing again.

The people who matter will read it and love it. Everybody else can take what you wrote, dump it into the slop machine, and rearrange it into something they find easier to read.

Some of his writing: https://samkriss.substack.com/p/five-prophets

His biography is quite interesting: https://halupedia.com/sam-kriss

I'm curious about the design. Maybe you have a "how I did it" post coming soon, or something. One question: Did you find away to get some convergence, where a newly generated page will tend to cite pages (or stubs, at least) that already exist in the universe? Seems hard to do it with generated text, but not impossible.

Feature request: also be able to click on the Talk page to see the controversies. I don't always want to trust the article itself as the final word.

Edit: Oh look, there's an article about the YC! https://halupedia.com/y-combinator

> snidely-whiplash-esque

I do hope this whole thing ends with someone saying "curses, foiled again!"

This is how discovery has always worked.

> submitted

Doesn't necessarily mean they volunteered it. Either submission or the unsealing could have been in response to a subpoena or court ruling.

Maybe the solution is to write at the top of your journal that you are cc'ing your lawyer on it. (Not legal advice!)

I don't love the recommendations in TFA. The author is trying to artificially restrain and roll back human language, which has already evolved to treat a chatbot as a conversational partner. But I do think there's usefulness in using these more pedantic forms once in a while, to remind yourself that it's just a computer program.