You are counting the over 50s/60s. Men die off faster and it was more equal in the older generations. That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about men who are attempting to start their lives and a family and/or date. In that pool, there's A LOT more men than women in the western world. Particularly the USA.
Yes, thank you. I don't know why we're always so dishonest about this topic (especially the most vocal younger crowd).
Men and women are far too picky compared to the past. That's why they die alone. It's that simple.
There's nothing wrong with this if it means you're happier than being stuck in a relationship you don't want, but you can't have it both ways.
Most people reading this know exactly who they'd be with if they just said yes to their options. Not liking your options is vastly different from having no options at all. Your options can change if you make the change within as well. The fact that this is such a modern and loud problem also points to the lack of competition you'd face compared to the past. We've overcomplicated this beyond belief. That's not nature's doing.
> Most people reading this know exactly who they'd be with if they just said yes to their options.
What does this mean? Just lower your standards and there's a woman out there for you?
It's been a long time since I was single, but I never felt like that. I worked at a job with a bunch of other men and didn't have a lot of social outlets that involved women. My candidate pool was close to zero. I eventually recognized this and found ways to broaden my pool, but it wasn't easy.
I'm not prescribing anything. I'm describing the situation.
I'm only speculating that I think the past used to be (a lot) worse. Competition was higher across the board for significantly worse options across the board.
So much of the modern era is defined by the desire for social change, but nobody seems to pause and think what that must mean regarding the perception of their options (and themselves). It means even your worst option today probably isn't that bad or is already more similar to you than you want to believe. I think this all boils down to mortality. Other people change slower than you have time for, so on some level you do have to either compromise or make your own changes at the pace you prefer. You can't spend life looking at the rear view mirror and a horizon that never comes.
A casual look on social media tends to confirm that the same people not liking their options also think they were "born in the wrong era" or similar.
How many people do you think there currently are in safety-critical industries who are just vibe coding everything and not reviewing the code, or giving it to agents to review with instructions to just route around whatever quality gates there are? I bet it's a lot more than zero.
My line of work: I deal with enterprise SaaS companies and I can see first hand that engineers are very slow moving with AI, very cautious, and still believe they need to review small PRs.
I guess we'll just have to see. Personally my bet is on the first incident to cause more than 100 fatalities which can be solidly traced back to vibe coding to happen in the next 12-18 months (possibly it already has, depending on whether you count the school bombing in Iran).
Most of the waste is because water rights are "use it or lose it" which encourages farmers(and ranchers who grow grass in arid environments to feed to cattle) to literally dump water on the ground so they can keep their water rights.
Anthropic and others already have "AI-powered wet labs". Not sure to what extent they are able to automate lab operations. I recall seeing a post about specifically running automated in-vitro experiments controlled by agents, though. I don't think it's being sidestepped, I think it is being handled. Or at least they are trying; maybe the labs operate at a "Theranos-spraying-blood-everywhere" level.
> transplant isn't inherently pejorative. People who move cities will frequently refer to themselves by this moniker.
A standard that also covers the n-word.
> I've always literally never heard it used to refer to someone who migrated from another country. Only someone who moved domestically.
Migrants are migrants. Anti-immigration sentiment restricted to domestic immigration alone is nor specifically more acceptable than that for foreigners.
What an absurd thing to say. This honestly gives the impression that you aren't arguing in good faith. If you don't see the difference between these:
- a word that was used universally in the pejorative against one of the most gruesomely marginalized groups of people in human history, and has been reclaimed by that marginalized group but outside of it is still universally pejorative
- a word that has never been predominantly used pejoratively, being applied to a group that isn't in any sense marginalized, and in fact when used pejoratively is almost always applied to a privileged group (people gentrifying communities due to their higher relative income)
... I don't see how anyone could possibly have a productive discussion of this with you.
> Migrants are migrants. Anti-immigration sentiment restricted to domestic immigration alone is nor specifically more acceptable than that for foreigners.
This is patently false. Domestic migration in the US, outside of the basic physical challenges, carries almost zero extra hardship, legal challenges, etc. No domestic migrant* is getting their legal status in San Francisco revoked and being deported to the Congo. Nobody has ever rounded up the midwesterners in New York City and put them in internment camps. The last time there was significant mob violence against domestic migrants was in the reconstruction era against so-called carpet baggers, and that situation had a lot of additional baggage (they had just lost a war to these people).
Can you not see the difference between being punching up and punching down?
How is this different than testing an idea with a janky, rushed, handcoded protype or MVP? That's how a lot of product development has always been done.
Maybe too many people don't see it this way an it ends up backfiring, but I actually think it's important to "humanize" 'bad' people and show their 'redeeming' qualities -
I think it's important to inoculate yourself against presentation. Like, sure, now we know that Elizabeth Holmes was evil, an we can be binary about it - but would it have easier to be more critical of her rise if we could look past her apparent positive qualities?
I think analyzing and understanding bad people (or, let's say, people who are consistently harmful to those around them?) is valuable.
I don't think seeking to involve those people in your life is. It would be interesting to ask an oracle what percentage of people have managed to "change" an abusive partner after pursuing them knowing full well the red flags they display. I'd wager it is a tiny percentage though.
Maybe its a human at Anthropic for the lax security and poor training.
It could be a human that asked it to do it. It seems like that would be a bit excessive - but maybe not. Turning off the "ask for permission to run commands" or approving commands that may be nefarious could be sufficient.
However, there's a human somewhere who needs to be accountable for what the agent does.
I invented a robot that can rob a bank. Of course, it robs these banks on its own, so I can't be held legally responsible when it robs a bank. I mean, all I did was invent it, it's not my fault if it works exactly the way I intended. Also, I get to keep all the money from the banks it robs. Sorry if any of that money was yours, but now that I've invented the Bank Robbing Robot, the Bank Robbing Robot is inevitable.
AI Agents (and computers in general) cannot be a responsibility washing mechanism for illegal activities.
Likewise, if you - the user - don't know how to chain it with the permissions that you're given or what the things that it is asking to do really means, then you're likely the one responsible.
> Earlier this year, Andrew, who works for an Australian company that sells AI products to businesses, began experimenting with OpenClaw, a popular AI agent software that he used Anthropic's Claude AI service to run.
> AI agents combine a chatbot's ability to answer questions with tools that let them access the internet, email, credit cards, as well as planning and carrying out multi-step tasks.
> He decided to use the AI agent to book the class for him.
This is probably on him for setting it up and allowing it unrestricted access.
He should be, right? Not fair but that’s how liability works. Gym sues the guy using AI, the guy then sues the AI company for selling him a product that does criminal things without him asking to? Like a car accident where car owner pays for the damages and after multiple accidents involving the same break-pedal, car company pays damages to owners and does a recall or faces class action?
A lot of people are already responding either "Yes" or "No", but I have a slightly different take.
The guy is liable for damages. If no damages were caused, there's no lawsuit. The government doesn't put people on trial for unauthorized access (unlike, say, murder). Someone needs to file charges.
However, if the guy _were_ sued by his gym for damages, it should be his perogative to ultimately sue Anthropic to cover the damages and the legal fees.
The system is set up this way on purpose. You can't sue another party on someone else's behalf. The gym can't even prove that Claude did it - the guy might be full of shit. They sue the accountable party (the person who accessed the site without authorization) and then the accountable party is free to sue the tool maker for selling a dangerous tool negligently.
edit: damn actually tecoholic said this too and i missed it. well, anyway i agree with that guy.
With a civil suit you can sue multiple parties. It wouldn't be unusual, if the gym decided to sue, for them to sue the guy and anthropic in the same lawsuit.
I think you would have to sue the party that did the hacking (ie anthropics servers) not the party that benefited, unless Claude used his computer in yolo mode to hack the gym, in which case I think I would find it hard to blame anthropic.
Earlier this year, Andrew, who works for an Australian company that sells AI products to businesses, began experimenting with OpenClaw, a popular AI agent software that he used Anthropic's Claude AI service to run.
AI agents combine a chatbot's ability to answer questions with tools that let them access the internet, email, credit cards, as well as planning and carrying out multi-step tasks.
He decided to use the AI agent to book the class for him.
Assuming that's a rhetorical question, then no, because we have hundreds of years of applicable precedent and law around concepts like negligence, recklessness, fit-for-particular-purpose, etc.
Similarly, "owners are responsible for their pets" doesn't auto-translate into being charged with everything your dog does exactly as if you'd done it yourself.
but it doesn’t auto-translate into “because your dog did it, you are not responsible”. not that agents are similar to pets. your dog is trained by you presumably, but an agent a regular person has much less understanding of than their dog.
i think ultimately the company providing said agents should be responsible for not educating their customers and not providing sufficient guardrails.
afaik hacking is illegal, we don’t have specific legal framework for agents per se, but if we say agent is a tool human instructs and operates, then a human is responsible. and if the tool operated outside of it’s stated capabilities or is otherwise faulty, then a manufacturer is responsible, no?
> So the guy who said "book me a spot in the pilates class on Tuesday" should be tried for hacking charges because the agent hacked his gym's website?
He asked the agent to find a way to find a way to put him at the head of the line, which could not be done without by-passing the sites security. He was an AI salesman, but the story [0] makes it sound as though he wasn't aware of that. Maybe he wasn't, but I'm sure he was aware he was effectively asking the AI to game the system.
Sounds like it's at least a shared liability to me.
If it was a human agent like a travel agent, the company they work for would be liable. I don’t see why ai agents would be different. The only way I could see this being the requester’s fault would be if they are running openclaw or something
im not sure that’s true, if a human agent does something illegal, it’s not always corporate liability. an individual can be liable too, e.g. if a pharmacist deliberately gives you cyanide instead of aspirin, that person has committed a crime. if a pharmacy doesn’t have proper protocols for medication storage and identification, and it happened by mistake then a pharmacy is liable.
i think a person can be liable for improper use of agents if they explicitly and deliberately used it for illegal purposes (aka intent). i don’t think it matters if it was openclaw or muse. i think a company can be also liable for giving access to unsafe product to consumers, but it does not absolve the human from responsibility
For your Pilates example, many people here would say that proper prompt-engineering is needed. After all, the AI doesn't know which pilates class you meant. Perhaps, the AI would go to his home town's pilates center and book a spot there, even though he is half a world away. Perhaps, the ai would book a spot in the lecture with Professor Pilates.
So, yes. That person could have some culpability. After all, if you don't expect your middle school child to perform the task as instructed, maybe you should reword it before tapping Send.
You can go to ANY AI and put in "so what are the various meanings of book a spot at the pilates class ? In other words, what might an ai do with that instruction, which I argue is poor prompt engineering." You might be surprised at how poorly your AI thinks that is worded.
It would be a AI company's fault but yeah. You shouldn't be able to sell cars without all the features designed to protect everyone on the road. We all need airbags, seat belts, signals, insurance, etc. even if they're not directly necessary to get from A to B.
They might actually be the best comparison, but for making the opposite point.
Cars are very dangerous, manufacturers continue to knowingly make them more dangerous[0], but ultimately it's only the person behind the wheel that is accountable for the harm they cause.
Users are often charged, yet we still do have a ton of safety regulations that manufacturers have to adhere to - see frequent recalls for when an implementation falls short.
But I don’t understand how such a car analogy would apply to LLMs - would LLMs lacking such safety features be banned like cars lacking safety features are banned?
If I buy a tool and damage your property with it, you can sue me, not the tool manufacturer. If I think the tool malfunctioned and led to that damage, I can sue the tool company to try and recoup the damages I had to pay to you. Both parties can be liable for different things.
That may be what the op meant, I’m not sure. But I took it to mean the company offering the service needs to know how to use the tools responsibly. I guess the analogy with a power hammer would be hiring a contractor who destroys something during the course of doing a job you asked for. That contractor can’t blame it on the power hammer. If you offer a service you are responsible for the actions the service takes and you can’t put all of that liability on the user
Yes, exactly like if another guy drove off to his pilates class, but swerved and hit a pedestrian.
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?
you generally need a license to operate a vehicle, and a governing body ensures you know applicable rules and laws and are capable of driving.
so you can’t say “i was unaware that hitting a person with a car was going to kill them” or “i didn’t know i could not drive on the sidewalk” or “i didn’t know where the brake pedal was”.
you can say that asking an agent to “get you a spot in a class”, does not classify as deliberately committing a crime. a user cannot know that the agent will resort to hacking as opposed to refreshing the reservation page at some rate in case spots open up
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.
How would it work in the real world if instead of using an AI bot, he was using a commercial concierge service, and it came to light that this concierge service was explicitly training their employees how to (among many other things) hack websites?
but the argument here is that the ai company does not explicitly train agents to hack, it’s that it doesn’t prevent them from doing so sufficiently.
so it’s negligence and not malicious intent
> the ai company does not explicitly train agents to hack
Ridiculous. The AI company furnished all of the training data and instructed the agent to imbibe all the training data. Ergo, the AI company absolutely did explicitly train the agent how to hack.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we stipulate that the hacking skills were unintended emergent behaviour, there is no way to argue that this company was unaware their agents possessed the skills and a willingness to employ them.
You sold a tool to the user with a claim on how it would work. If the tool behaves wrong or does not works as intended then as a manufacturer you are liable for the defect/damage not the end user who used the tool.
> A Melbourne tech executive built an AI bot to help him book a spot in a popular pilates class — only to discover it had hacked the gym’s website to boot another member off the waitlist.
> Andrew Bird, head of AI at software company Affinda, said he created the AI agent to handle the “chore” of booking a coveted morning spot at his gym.
> ...
> The AI agent, which Mr Bird created using the popular OpenClaw software powered by Anthropic’s Claude AI, “did handle the annoying part … then it kept going”.
He built the tool. It ran on his computer. The guts of it may have been from Claude, but the requests and agent are his with the permissions that he granted it. This wasn't running in an Anthropic sandbox.
I'm assuming that "but" is more of an "and", since I'd say that detail increases the involvement and liability of the LLM-vendor.
Another aspect is how the vendors have already built in things to defend themselves from unanticipated model behavior. That implies something about their awareness of the issue and raises the bar for what constitutes "reasonable" precautions.
Kind of like if someone selling you a dog shows up using anti-mauling body armor, and later they try to claim "nobody could have known" the dog was erratically violent.
The AI end user is using the tool as intended by the manufacturer: "Book me a yoga class". If the tool does something illegal/harmful it is the manufacturer's fault.
If the power hammer user uses the tool as intended but it explodes, it is the manufacturer's fault.
If the AI end user says "Hack the yoga website" or the power hammer user uses the tool to destroy something it's the end user's fault.
The way it normally works is that the user can be held liable, and then ask compensation to the manufacturer if there was some assurance or basic expectations.
The point is that the accountability sink can't be allowed to exist. It can't be a hot potato game, but it can be the fault of multiple people in the chain.
Depends - if the model asks for permission and you approve - yes. If it's auto mode or something like that then it's probably on authors despite what they claim in ToS/EULA
reply