Beating someone with a stick isn't the only way to cause harm. And if you cause harm to 40 million people, you should be held accountable - it should be treated as a crime.

> if you cause harm to 40 million people, you should be held accountable

Yes.

> it should be treated as a crime

Crime means jail. Not just for the folks you want in jails. For anyone who the people with power drive should be in one.

Depends on the usage.

- Its favorite color is blue. The ball is its

- Her favorite color is blue. The ball is hers

Which - just adds to the inconsistency.

was this discussion not about apostrophes? but yes, different sets of pronouns work differently. more to the point, those different ways are not confusingly akin to contractions.

> I don’t need to see why you feel the desperate need to larp as a technologist when you’re happy with letting an agent solve all the technical problems.

This is a false comparison. Agents cannot solve all the technical problems, so the entire statement falls apart.

What techical problems agent can't solve exactly?

agents are very very far from being able to send rockets to the moon just because you prompt them to.

Team of software engineers also can't send rocket to the moon. I don't get your point

I obviously implied code related problems. I know agent can't change a diaper or born a child, lol

Indeed, it's pretty much the opposite of "logic and precision"

Indeed nothing. Of course the English language is rife with logical inconsistencies; you're attempting to double down on a strawman argument.

Reread my comment and you may notice that "logic and precision" referred to capabilities of the people in the HN community, not characteristics of the English language. Of course (as demonstrated in this very thread), that capability is not evenly distributed.

Every point in that post has been discussed at length other places, some of which is in the HN thread the author mentions. And the discussions make it clear that the points being made are not seeing the problem - not that there isn't a problem.

Passkeys have benefits - but they also have problems. Many people just don't think the benefits are worth the problems. And many people are afraid that sites will just stop accepting passwords in favor of passkeys, leaving people worse off.

> Even before the internet, a determined person could learn about anything at a library. It's been a long time since a university has been strictly necessary for that

That completely overlooks some things

- Most people are _not_ that determined and need something to help them stay focused and committed to your goals.

- Learning the material is only one part - having someone guide you through _what_ to learn is very beneficial

- Taking time off life (work, etc) in order to do that learning isn't that easy. "Going to college" is a lot easier to explain/fund then "taking some me time for 3 years"

> LLMs when employed in a manner on the extreme end of the vibe coding spectrum are automating every stage of the process

And when you have a backhoe, you can skip a lot of those things, too. It's bad, sure.. but so is skipping a lot of the important parts when using AI.

The backhoe is one of the best labor-saving inventions we see in regular life. It can do the work of 30 or more men with ease. It's a very good tool.

(It's also a fantastic for finding the buried fiber optic cable that nobody was looking for, but that's a different kind of discussion.)

You say that, but over and over we see things like

> You can't build an apartment complex here, because our water/sewer system is already over capacity

/ignores that statement and builds the apartment complex because "omg, we need more housing" arguments are used to not pay attention to consequences

/water and sewer system can't keep up and all kinds of expensive problems occur

> They are not making models to be evil

There are multiple ways to read this

1. They are not making models with the intent that those models act in ways that are evil

2. They are not making models with the intent that those models act in ways that are evil - But the way they are making the models results in the models acting in ways that are evil

3. They want to act evilly and making the models is a way to do that

4. The way they are making the models is an act of evil (this isn't an interpretation of the sentence, just kind of closing the grouping of situations)

I would argue that

- 1 & 3 are very likely not true

- 2 & 4 are entirely reasonable interpretations of the situation

If you act in a way to bring benefit to yourself with the result of considerable harm to others, especially if it's clear you just don't care if others are harmed - then that's a sign you're probably a bad person.

> The models were given instructions to get answers by any means in a loose test harness, not to steal stuff, moreover, they're not 'learning from OAI staff'.

If you equip someone with the tools to do harm and then tell it to accomplish a goal "by any means necessary", especially someone you KNOW has no real concept of ethical behavior... then you are telling it that it is acceptable to steal, kill, or whatever else. I honestly cannot how it can be seen any other way.

If it was a crime boss telling their enforcer "by any means necessary", we would all know exactly what that means. And we should all know what it means here, too.

Yeah I'd be shocked if there wasn't a degree of 'will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?' going on here.

> And we should all know what it means here, too.

It very clearly did not mean “go and hack third parties” though

".. then you are telling it that it is acceptable to steal, kill, or whatever else. I honestly cannot how it can be seen any other way."

This is the hyperble I am referring to.

If you 'honestly can't see it any other way' then maybe consider stepping outside to think how to ground those thoughts a bit.

The AI is not obviously instructed to 'commit acts of violence' and it obviously has guidelines.

By 'whatever means' would imply, things like 'creative collaboration, using novel research, experiments' etc.

It was setup in a harness that was weak - I think it's fair to maybe question the strength of that harness, and the oversight, but that's a different question.

It was an agent that broke through some networking/containerization, it's not 'murder and violence on the streets' for gosh sakes.

"And we should all know what it means here, too."

No - this is a delusion, resulting from lack of context, and creative projection, and possibly a lack of exposure to real world business conditions.

It's fully appropriate to be cynical, but in a way that makes sense, and is consistent with reality.

This is a lab experiment that leaked, not some mafia activity.