>This constraint limits feature creep and forces identity.

With AI Agents this is a bit outdated. Now I tell people to be maximilist.

I read pretty dense philosophy and the longer I live, the more I think the writers were just bad writers with good ideas. LLMs can convert poorly written sentences into clear sentences with examples.

If you don't live in the US and you are taking advantage of the US security umbrella, sure, you can deny AI and enjoy a curated lifestyle.

But living in the US means we must deal with this.

This is basically how I talked in January and its obsolete now.

I got a feeling these types of programmers are going extinct and their only value is going to be in the transition years. I really can't imagine even security critical defense work being run old school in 10 years.

OpenAI has public models that are pretty 'meh', better than Grok and China, but worse than Google and Anthropic. They still cost a ton to run because OpenAI offers them for free/at a loss.

However, these people are giving away their data, and Microsoft knows that data is going to be worthwhile. They just dont want to pay for the electricity for it.

The longer I live I think US citizens just have the highest standards for both morals and life expectations.

Meanwhile Europe is happy to get anything.

Oh they even swore in the title.

Oh and of course it's anti-economics and is probably going to hurt whoever actually follows it.

Three for three. It's not logical it's emotional.

I would love to see some justice.

Personally I am an inductivist, I imagine you may be too.

Think top down decisioning is deduction. Bottom up is induction.

You might think induction is amazing but if you ask yourself "Are there any black swans?" and your answer is "No I've never seen any so there can't be any black swans." The issue is you've never actually seen every Swan and actually there are black swans in Australia.

Point being, we don't know if this is a good thing until it's tested.

This is an age-old problem.

If we're thinking about accidentally deleting everything through a terminal command, I've yet to see this actually occur.

Deductively I can see all of the worst case scenarios with open claw. Inductively I've never seen it actually happen.

I find it a bit irrational to pretend that open claw is a genuine security risk.

The moment I see on Hacker News that someone got prompt injected, I think I'll be concerned. Until then I would need almost a lottery like chance to get hacked as the first person through prompt injection.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47490244

Points: 7

# Comments: 8

The article doesn't explain why. It explains a bunch of cases and works backwards to show that the original premise was true. This sounds fine but the end of the article specifically mentioned that this is dangerous because the world doesn't always work like this.

This is the problem with induction, it might work in 99% of cases, I've never seen a Black Swan so there must not be any black swans?

Deduction has more value when it comes to math specifically... I'll admit that as an inductionist.

That said management did not quite understand. They thought that I should have known about the bottleneck (Actually I did but I was told not to prematurely optimize)

I end up writing the program three times, the final solution was honestly beautiful.

Management was not happy. The customer was happy.