Calling prompt injection "not malware" … is like saying a phishing email is not [malware] …

By running an agent, you are turning plain text into an executable. This has great benefits for you, but (as with all great power) it comes with some added risks too. Please remain wary of externalizing these risks onto plain text authors by creating an expectation that all plain text is pseudo-executable.

    Nobody who’s this insistent, aggressive and violative with their language of “it’s here and if you don’t adopt it you’re stupid and dead” has ever been right about anything. Nobody this desperate, insistent and forceful has ever had good intentions, good vibes or brought good omens — they are always bearers of some kind of con. 

I think there’s two productive avenues for reaching the other side here. One is thinking more about the data centers - put aside the “overconfident and unaware of how hard it is to build data centers” hypothesis and instead start by assuming that “announcing and funding a huge data center and never actually building it” is the intended/desired/achieved outcome, and see where that train of thought takes you. (Teaser: interesting how they had the unusually prescient foresight to make SPVs and cardboard cutout companies the bag-holders - specifically in the case of building data centers, but not for any of their other ai-related capex outlay?)

The other avenue would be looking at crypto’s history - it started as a collection of computer science concepts cleverly combined to produce a fiat currency where the issuing government is Mathematics (infinitely more rigidly enforced, but infinitely less concerned with exercising control). Yet now it clearly resembles an unlicensed casino or an unregulated stock market. Imagine this transformation was the intentional result of some plan. What does the entity who came up with and executed this plan look like? What was its goal, why did it want this, and how did it benefit?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150314221334/http://acko.net/

“Think about what this means … the original SimCity ran on a Commodore 64. An empty Chrome tab takes more memory than that entire machine had. We’re not constrained by hardware anymore. We’re not even constrained by understanding what the code does … codebases will 10-100x in size because AI … endless bugs … the question is whether you’re building with it or explaining why you’re not.”

Looking through the eyes of an AI champion, I see a world where the first execution of any given idea, the first product to hit the market for any given need, is guaranteed to be AI-generated - with the “10-100x size” codebase, the corresponding (and often superlinear) decrease in performance, and the attendant “endless bugs”.

While it’s common to see groaning about double-equal vs triple-equal comparison and eye-rolling directed at absurdly large tables like in https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Guid... but I think it’s genuinely great that we have the ability to distinguish between concepts like “explicitly not present” and “absent”.

In complexity analysis however it is the presence or absence of “comparisons” that makes all the difference. “Best-of-1” does not have comparisons, while “best-of-2”, “best-of-3”, etc., do have comparisons. There’s a weaker “selections” class, and a more powerful “selections+comparisons” class. Doing more comparisons might move you around within the internal rankings of the “selections+comparisons” class but the differences within the class are small compared to the differences between the classes.

An alternative, less rigorous intuition: behind door number 1 is a Lamborghini, behind door number 2 is a Toyota, and behind door number 3 is cancer. Upgrading to “best of 2” ensures you will never get cancer, while upgrading again to “best of 3” merely gets you a sweeter ride.