I'm building a Home vault like this currently. With the new obsidian cli, you can do a lot more with letting an agent manage things and update dashboards, etc. for you.
Interesting that when Grok was targeting and denuding women, engineers here said nothing, or were just chuckling about "how people don't understand the true purpose of AI"
And now that they themselves are targeted, suddenly they understand why it's a bad thing "to give LLMs ammo"...
Perhaps there is a lesson in empathy to learn? And to start to realize the real impact all this "tech" has on society?
People like Simon Wilinson which seem to have a hard time realizing why most people despise AI will perhaps start to understand that too, with such scenarios, who knows
It's the same how HN mostly reacts with "don't censor AI!" when chat bots dare to add parental controls after they talk teenagers into suicide.
The community is often very selfish and opportunist. I learned that the role of engineers in society is to build tools for others to live their lives better; we provide the substrate on which culture and civilization take place. We should take more responsibility for it and take care of it better, and do far more soul-seeking.
Talking to a chatbot yourself is much different from another person spinning up a (potentially malicious) AI agent and giving it permissions to make PRs and publish blogs. This tracks with the general ethos of self-responsibility that is semi-common on HN.
If the author had configured and launched the AI agent himself we would think it was a funny story of someone misusing a tool.
The author notes in the article that he wants to see the `soul.md` file, probably because if the agent was configured to publish malicious blog posts then he wouldn't really have an issue with the agent, but with the person who created it.
Parental controls and settings in general are fine, I don't want Amodei or any other of those freaks trying to be my dad and censoring everything. At least Grok doesn't censor as heavily as the others and pretend to be holier than thou.
> suddenly they understand why it's a bad thing "to give LLMs ammo"
Be careful what you imply.
It's all bad, to me. I tend to hang with a lot of folks that have suffered quite a bit of harm, from many places. I'm keenly aware of the downsides, and it has been the case for far longer than AI was a broken rubber on the drug store shelf.
Software engineers (US based particularly) were more than happy about software eating the economy when it meant they'd make 10x the yearly salary of someone doing almost any other job; now that AI is eating software it's the end of the world.
Just saying, what you're describing is entirely unsurprising.
I hate when people say this. SOME engineers didn't care, a lot of us did. There's a lot of "engineers getting a taste of their own medicine" sentiment going around when most of us just like an intellectual job where we get to build stuff. The "disrupt everything no matter the consequences" psychos have always been a minority and I think a lot of devs are sick of those people.
Also 10x salary?! Apparently I missed the gravy train. I think you're throwing a big class of people under the bus because of your perception of a non representative sample
Indeed, the US is a ridiculously large and varied place. It's really irresponsible to try and put us all into the same bucket when the slice they're really referring to is less than 10% of us and lumped into a tiny handful of geographic regions.
The fact that we don't (can't) know the truth doesn't mean we don't have to care.
The fact that this tech makes it possible that any of those case happen should be alarming, because whatever the real scenario was, they are all equally as bad
I'm going to go on a slight tangent here, but I'd say: GOOD.
Not because it should have happened.
But because AT LEAST NOW ENGINEERS KNOW WHAT IT IS to be targeted by AI, and will start to care...
Before, when it was Grok denuding women (or teens!!) the engineers seemed to not care at all... now that the AI publish hit pieces on them, they are freaked about their career prospect, and suddenly all of this should be stopped... how interesting...
At least now they know. And ALL ENGINEERS WORKING ON THE anti-human and anti-societal idiocy that is AI should drop their job
I'm sure you mean well, but this kind of comment is counterproductive for the purposes you intend. "Engineers" are not a monolith - I cared quite a lot about Grok denuding women, and you don't know how much the original author or anyone else involved in the conversation cared. If your goal is to get engineers to care passionately about the practical effects of AI, making wild guesses about things they didn't care about and insulting them for it does not help achieve it.
I'm going to go on a slight tangent here, but I'd say: GOOD.
Not because it should have happened.
But because AT LEAST NOW ENGINEERS KNOW WHAT IT IS to be targeted by AI, and will start to care...
Before, when it was Grok denuding women (or teens!!) the engineers seemed to not care at all... now that the AI publish hit pieces on them, they are freaked about their career prospect, and suddenly all of this should be stopped... how interesting...
At least now they know. And ALL ENGINEERS WORKING ON THE anti-human and anti-societal idiocy that is AI should drop their job
Nah billionaires need to be punished, they have raped the Earth for profit and caused mass misery/death upon her people. In fact a good way for the US to rebuild credibility is to probably send a few billionaires to the Hague and have them tried for crimes against humanity in the ICJ.
Lots of billionaires should probably be at the hague. But we should be glad if people can become billionaires because they are generating that much value of both parties being better off, without imposing externalities on others. Yvonne Chouinard came close to this ideal, I think.
If someone can genuinely generate billions in value, not just by imposing externalities on others that they then reallocate to themselves, I will be damn glad that they exist and be damn glad that the hope of getting richer keeps them at it.
No we shouldn't be "glad that people can become billionaire".
We should be glad that people can get reasonable wealthy, say, $100M net worth would be more than plenty, and would ensure that: people who worked hard got a lot ($100M!!), but nobody alone or in very small numbers can try to destroy the fabric of society
Is that hard for you to understand?
The fact that at your age you're still mistaking "generating billions in value" (this doesn't mean anything) with "extracting money from the system and selfishly refusing to give some of it back in a meaningful way" means that you still have to learn about how the world really works
I'm not glad they can become billionaires for their sake. I'm glad they can become billionaires for your and my sake, under the ideal I proposed, which is that billionaires can become that way only by entering into transactions where all sides are better off for doing so.
Because you fail to understand how economy and the world works. No, they don't "only do so by entering into transactions where all sides are better off", that's just a convenient fiction for people like you who never thought about the economic realities
The truth is they are abusing a system and rigging the laws, in order to keep extracting as much as they can. If it was really a "better for everyone", why don't you think all Starbuck's barista would be "overjoyed" of going to work every day? Think for yourself one minute instead of repeating talking points from FoxNews that you never even considered for one minute
Oh I understand how it works. That's why I agreed many of them deserve to be at the Hague.
Remember, I said, ideal I proposed -- the ideal of the free market, where they can only become billionaires by entering voluntary transactions without externality to others. Under such ideal, if someone is a billionaire, it's because everyone is better off.
There have been varying shades of gray for how these play out in reality, the least shaded ones I'm generally grateful for and the most shaded ones are outright criminals that should have their fortune seized and put behind bars.
No, this is truly a pathetic mindset. There is more to the world than making "value." No one dies thinking "I wish I made more value." Absolutely pathetic, much like them.
Exactly. Also it's not the "billionaires" who are "making value". They are lousy at making anything. It's the workers (engineers, farmers, factory workers) that "make".
The billionaires are just good at "capturing" value, and not giving back the rightfully owned share by the people.
"engineers, farmers, factory workers" can just enter a co-op and sell the goods cheaper while still enjoying a slightly higher wage if the billionaires really aren't contributing anything. Seems like if what you say is true, in a free market billionaires would be forced out of business because they could not compete.
You cannot have a functioning economy or political system when there are billionaires because they no longer are accountable to the market or the people
Wait, are you suggesting we _shouldn't_ treat billionaires as a collective action problem to be dealt with via policy? So you're suggesting what, individual violence?
You do not appear to have a solid grasp on how the world functions.
Billionaires don't reach this extreme amount of wealth by "work" (unless you believe in magic tales and "tooth fairy", but probably you're old enough to figure out that those "tales" of self-made man they give you on the TV are completely made-up?)
Billionaires reach those obscene amount of wealth by tricking the system. Putting themselves in a place where they're able to "capture" the money, and refuse to pay (through normal taxation) their fair share of what they owe the society
No billionaire does his business "on his own". They rely on an existing infrastructure (roads, schools, hospitals for the workers), and the very work of their employees.
So it's perfectly normal at some point to say: you might have done a very interesting business and got rich, but beyond a certain "inequality threshold" (let's say $100M) we tax away all the rest to give it back to society. When you think about it, it's the ONLY thing that makes sense
reply