I paid, ran antigravity cli, getting 500 on the image tool because the model the cli wants to use is not available?
There are no other models to choose. Im so confused
At least on Unix-like systems, if it's free for you to read, then it's free for any process you run as you to read. Sure, macOS has grafted its own weird "permissions" layer on top of the existing OS level permissions, but at the end of the day, when you run an app on Unix, you're allowing it to act as you, with all the powers your user has.
This used to work when you could trust the software you ran on your system to have access to everything you have access to on your computer. I'd argue that time has largely passed, for most third-party commercial developers and even for some OS vendors.
Best solution is to simply not run software made by blatantly untrustworthy developers. Second best solution would be to run such software as a severely sandboxed user who basically doesn't have access to anything important on your system.
My mental model is to treat AI agents running on your system as a form of malware that is running in a honeypot you control. You don't want to just get rid of it as you want to observe its behaviour (in the case of malware) or hopefully do something useful (AI). But you certainly shouldn't assume it won't do anything bad to your system.
> at the end of the day, when you run an app on Unix, you're allowing it to act as you with all the powers your user has.
This is not at all how it works on macOS, which is what is being discussed in the original post. There are a million different things that require per-app explicit opt-in permissions. This is a case of user error.
I do not know about all Unix like OSes, but Linux has sandboxes you can run as you main user. Not as safe as running as a separate user and sandboxing, or running in a VM, but reasonably solid.
> I'd argue that time has largely passed, for most third-party commercial developers and even for some OS vendors.
In theory, iOS has some protection: the security model is that not all apps can be trusted with everything, so they have to ask for permission to access camera, GPS, texts and so on. I think apple even kicks apps out of its store that try and abuse this.
It's also a gamble that you don't have to look at the underlying layers because it's "the new abstraction layer". Which is intellectually incredibly lazy.
They talk about astractions as if "requirements -> code" is the same as "Go -> ASM -> bytecode". Which is just utterly stupid. But downvotes tell me a different story haha.
I'm also management btw, and the two startups I am a CTO at all have clear buy-in from other C-levels that we can't just spam AI slop w/o reading it and hope for the best. But I do see that most probably don't see it.
Unfortunately here, one big team shipped a product that looks to be a big hit from early Analytics. So they expect every other team with other seniority to achieve same results.
Wonder how it will age.
I'm a bit shocked they don't care much about the strangle contract this introduces by being so dependant on external models.
I run the free service https://countrx.app/ so i have some idea what goes into counting.
The performance as a general model is indeed really impressive and i think they might actually win compared to fine tuned models.
Their feedback loop of training on user data is incredibly strong.
I've learned that lots of accuracy results depends on threshold configs, which llms should be able to dynamically set.
Or the future will develop in llms using fine-tuned models as tools?
Inference cost and speed does still seem to be below user expectations.
But for being able to one shot with this accuracy... IMPRESSIVE
reply