> Older people in the UK already have free bus passes and various other substantial concessions regarding public transport. Cars are dangerous, and if you can't see clearly, you're obviously not fit to drive. It's true that there will be negative impacts on people who will fail the eye tests, and we should be compassionate, but ultimately those people aren't safe behind the wheel, and put other peoples lives at risk, not just their own.
This is an absurd take. I grew up in a town of ~60,000 people in the UK. The public transport, was, and _still_ is terrible. To get to the nearby shopping center which was the only place with bowling and a movie theatre, and any shops that weren't charity shops involved 2 trains and a bus taking about an hour and a half. A drive would be 20 minutes and a negotiation with my parents to give me a lift.
Nowadays my mother is in her 70s and lives in this same town, and drives into the countryside every day to take her mental health walks. Without this, she probably wouldn't be here today. Taking her car away from her would be giving her a death sentence to rot at home on a council estate that she hates living in.
> The UK has plenty of public transport options and places where people can live with amenities close by
I mean this simply isn't true. You must live in London or a bubble.
It's absolute negligence for anyone to be installing anything at this point in this space. There is no oversight, hardly anyone looking at what's published, no automated scanning and there is no security model in place that works that isn't vulnerable to prompt injection.
We need to go back to the drawing board. You might as well just run curl https://example.com/script.sh | sudo bash at this point.
It's far worse than that. `curl | bash` is at least a one-time thing coming from a single source. An autonomous agent like OpenClaw is more like running `slack | bash` or `mail | bash`.
I'm not the commentor, but you could get different results from the same curl command depending on what the server wants to give you at the time. The bash script can make additional curl calls or set up jobs that occur at other times.
I'm sure both of you understand this. I'm guessing it's just semantics.
Right. My point is that you only run it once, so there's only that one chance for a compromise. If you got lucky and talked to the right server and it gave you a good script, which is overwhelmingly probable most of the time, you're in the clear. That doesn't mean it's wise, but the danger is limited. Whereas with these agents, every piece of data they're exposed to is potentially interpreted as instructions.
Hey I ran this command and after I gave it my root password nothing happened. WTH man? /s
Point being, yeah, it's a little bit like fire. It seems really cool when you have a nice glowing coal nestled in a fire pit, but people have just started learning what happens when they pick it up with their bare hands or let it out of its containment.
Short-term a lot of nefarious people are going to extract a lot of wealth from naive people. Long term? To me it is another nail in the coffin of general computing:
> The answer is not to stop building agents. The answer is to build the missing trust layer around them. Skills need provenance. Execution needs mediation.
Guess who is going to build those trust layers? The very same orgs that control so much of our lives already. Google gems are already non-transportable to other people in enterprise accounts, and the reasons are the same as above: security. However they also can't be shared outside the Gemini context, which just means more lock-in.
So in the end, instead of teaching our kids how to use fire and showing them the burns we got in learning, we're going teach them to fear it and only let a select few hold the coals and decide what we can do with them.
I mean it's there front-and-center and mentioned multiple times in all materials related to airtags. These are not anti-theft, or stalking devices as they alert the thief. They are tracking devices for misplacing items (e.g. a wallet).
I own 8 AirTags, and have them on all my sets of keys and in all my bags. I've managed to avoid loss about 5 times in the 3 years of using them. It also gives me piece of mind when landing on a plane that my luggage is where its meant to be.
If you want to stop your wallet being stolen, I'm afraid your options are very limited.
You're missing the point, celebrities just happen to have a huge reach and noticed the reach being cut.
This probably means everyone else is also getting their reach crippled.
Remember that even with clear video evidence, the administration lies about the events and tries to spin it as domestic terrorism.
So imagine what they are doing, and will do, without video evidence.
This is probably one of the darkest times in America... You have an administration that normalizes lying and violence, and a tens of millions of Americans that are choosing to close their eyes and suspend their morals because they're scared and confused.
First, they’re screaming OH, THE HUMANITY! over censorship before their favorite puppets take the wheel. Then, they’re the first ones ridiculing anyone else for complaining about the exact same thing.
Yes. The company I am working at currently is using it extensively and I have seen first hand what their senior people are producing with the AI, and I rarely have any comments. It's adding huge value, and increases the velocity of delivery.
I think it depends on your tooling, your code-base, your problem space, and your ability to intelligently inject context. If all four are aligned (in my case they are) it's the real deal.
Everyone is using Cursor, model preference varies. The best performers have large context in their repository, make very detailed plans using Planning mode and then execute. Use different models to individually review the work.
I'm on latest Tahoe and M3 MBP and the issue is even worse than the author describes. There is about a 5px window also for grabbing the straight edges of the window to expand in one axis only.
It goes without saying that social media is causing irreparable harm to the fabric of our society.
To use an analogy: if the village idiot went to the town square and shouted hate speech, he'd be laughed at or dealt with. Now anyone has a platform to go to the town square, except it's the world, and shout hate speech. And unlike before there will be hateful people, some of them unrecognisable from real people, who will support the village idiot. They will help amplify his voice and validate him and legitimise him.
We have to find a way to stop this. The only thing I can think of is require you to attach your real identity to social media accounts, and regulate the living daylights out of it to hold the networks accountable if their owners don't want to do the right thing. Free speech isn't free.
I agree that social media is a net negative, but want to also point out that before social media it was the mainstream press and TV have been shaping society for decades. Things like buying a used car from Nixon or fighting in Vietnam etc are all mainstream press impact.
I like to think that contrary to this modern idea of media bias that the “mainstream” media as you label it has been a net benefit to society. Journalists used to challenge authority in democracies and bring out truth. It’s a lot more difficult now due to social media polluting the information space.
"This sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media"
... say the local TV presenters parroting an identical script from the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns or operates 193 TV stations in the USA, covering 40% of US households
You'd be mad to think that consolidated control of information, the endgame of "mainstream" media, is of benefit to society.
"Mainstream" media is financed either directly by very rich individuals, who then use their control of the thing they own (even just by controlling its hiring policies, to give like-minded people a voice) to spam their own agenda on the populace, or a generic money-making enterprise that then deals with less-affluent people who want to spam the populace (advertisers).
Touche. But you miss that not all social media (e.g. blogs and forums, instant messaging) are "social media platforms".
Also, the trick doesn't work with social media platforms in the same way. Rupert Murdoch bought Myspace, where is it now? He didn't get the same control and power he got when he bought The Times and The Sun and could tell the staff who wrote the content what to say to their passive readers.
Do you think this doesn't happen in other countries?
Just to give an example from the UK of "state" media, the nominally independent BBC has to answer to a board, and to the regulator Ofcom. But in 2021, Boris Johnson installed Richard Sharp (Tory pary donor, Rishi Sunak's old boss) as the head of the board, and Robbie Gibb (Theresa May's head of communication) as a member, and attempted to rig the selection of the head of Ofcom, even though he's not legally allowed to do that. He still tried it. He "let it be known" he wanted Paul Dacre (former Daily Mail editor) be head of Ofcom. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/63982/boris-john...
They are all at it, to try and control public opinion and gatekeep what is seen and not seen.
Sure, but on the whole I'd argue outside of tabloids there are still real journalists doing real journalism and trying their best to hold people to account.
The thing is, the internet was supposed to democratise, but it's ended up centralising (and therefore distorting) discourse
A good example is publishing: until relatively recently, books were how most knowledge was distributed, and publishers were able to gatekeep it
Back in the 1990s, one of the promises of the internet, was that it could break this stranglehold. The argument was that instead of 10-ish major publishers, we could have ten billion
What we've ended up with is 5 or so major platforms. Their algorithms now distort, not only the distribution of information, but the production of knowledge itself (click chasing)
An argument I'm sympathetic to, is that the internet hasn't just been a neutral medium, but has actually accelerated this centralisation
The other aspect is the shrinking role of non commercial institutions, like public sector broadcasters, universities, scientific orgs. These entities had their own biases and groupthink. But they added diversity to the media landscape and helped set useful norms
> To use an analogy: if the village idiot went to the town square and shouted hate speech, he'd be laughed at or dealt with. Now anyone has a platform to go to the town square, except it's the world, and shout hate speech. And unlike before there will be hateful people, some of them unrecognisable from real people, who will support the village idiot. They will help amplify his voice and validate him and legitimise him.
As usual the problem is the commoner idiot, not the group of sociopaths that now have the means to astroturf their agendas efficiently.
Especially puzzling since this submission is about exactly the latter.
> We have to find a way to stop this. The only thing I can think of is require you to attach your real identity to social media accounts, and regulate the living daylights out of it to hold the networks accountable if their owners don't want to do the right thing. Free speech isn't free.
Think harder then.
The village idiot could move and reinvent himself as a respectable fellow. Basically, pre-digital we naturally had different personas; there was no Panopticon that could ever hope to know all our associations. Digital tools have changed that. And inventing the fiction of “one single persona” to tie back to what you said five years ago, ten years ago, thirty years ago, is a terrible idea, and I would argue (based on intuition) very unnatural.
This is an absurd take. I grew up in a town of ~60,000 people in the UK. The public transport, was, and _still_ is terrible. To get to the nearby shopping center which was the only place with bowling and a movie theatre, and any shops that weren't charity shops involved 2 trains and a bus taking about an hour and a half. A drive would be 20 minutes and a negotiation with my parents to give me a lift.
Nowadays my mother is in her 70s and lives in this same town, and drives into the countryside every day to take her mental health walks. Without this, she probably wouldn't be here today. Taking her car away from her would be giving her a death sentence to rot at home on a council estate that she hates living in.
> The UK has plenty of public transport options and places where people can live with amenities close by
I mean this simply isn't true. You must live in London or a bubble.
reply