cowpig

`greywall -- opencode`

It's much different.

The dependency trees have a whole system that's evolved for decades. The same code goes into many computers. Many people read the source, security firms look for vulnerabilities, etc.

Language models are a completely new paradigm. The code it writes on your machine is the only instance of that code. It does far more than anybody could ever keep track of.

It's much harder to detect problems, and nobody to hold accountable for them.

This is an option:

https://github.com/GreyhavenHQ/greywall

Well, tmux is mature, battle-tested software, whereas probably no human has ever read the majority of the code in this project.

I've always found that what science is really lacking is closed, proprietary ecosystems trying to build for-profit moats around research.

Thank our lords at Anthropic for stepping into this void

I don't think we should ask the agent runtime to police itself.

I contributed to a tool for this problem that is lower-friction than traditional sandboxing:

greywall.io

But you should use something to contain an agent runtime. The idea that people run things like codex on their machines with regular user permissions is baffling to me.

I don't see why those two positions are mutually exclusive?

Can I serve my media library off of my NAS with the PS5? I am legit asking because I just got on the list hoping to use this thing as my home entertainment system

openclaw is for larping

I visited Cuba and found that Castro's popularity is fairly universal there. I have never been to Miami and don't know any Cuban immigrants, though.

I think you are underestimating the amount of compute the US frontier labs have access to.

A lot in here about Google, which hilariously has done a bunch of studies that concluded it's hiring process is awful (is sure is!) and the takeaway is that candidate evaluation is impossible, not that Google in particular does it badly.

Right now my only source of income is the $15k/year I got by being one of the top 300 GitHub users globally. That puts me in the 99.9997th percentile of open source developers (based off GitHub's 100 million monthly active user count). What it means is that I'm uniquely able to convert your money into the largest amount of value for society. I want to start by using the money to buy myself a home in San Francisco, in a neighborhood where I can feel safe, so that I can have a bed, set up a real office, entertain guests, and take photographs. I want to travel around the world and experience the cosmopolitan lifestyle my project is named after, using only private aviation, so that I won't be molested or risk being detained each time I fly. I want to hire an elite team that can help me accomplish my social and technical goals, such as adding native support for my file format to every operating system.

The bit about "using only private aviation" and "hir[ing] an elite team" sound satirical at first, but then the next sentence sounds earnest, so I can't tell?

I looked up this person on wikipedia, so the "I want to live a cosmopolitan life and fly private" seems like something someone who was involved with occupy wall street would say sardonically, but I am not sure?

Regardless, this person's technical work seems incredible and I really hope we can find a way to support people who work independently and aren't obsessed with capturing the value they create in the US.

I don't know how I feel about this, conceptually.

It's clear that social media are natural monopolies, and are being politically leveraged by the people who run them. So the status quo is definitely far from free speech. It's more of a "command economy of ideas" than a "marketplace".

But is this a reasonable solution? I feel like rules around algorithmic neutrality and penalties for misinformation might be better?

I expect more from HN than seeing this kind of propaganda:

Vague story without references featuring the takedown of an uninteresting political caricatures

oh great more memes about that data security catastrophe

people with values different from yours, presumably

We should be involving our community members more in the exchange of ideas, and digital sources of information quite a bit less.

Their business model revolves around people to choose to pay them for products, which aligns them with customer interests on a fundamental level. They have to work within those constraints when they engage in lock-in chicanery

Most of the other big tech companies make their revenue from other companies paying them to leverage the influence they have over their users. So they are not constrained in the same way.

I believe that most Googlers are pretty aligned with the principles of the HN crowd, but Google the machine is not.

better is always good

when something you think is bad gets better but not better enough, say "more please"

Can you explain why they are mutually exclusive?

A couple of my favourites to add to your list:

- Patrick's Parabox

- Blue Prince

pro: if the world devolves into an authoritarean hellscape, people will still have a form of undetectable currency until they find a way to get rid of this

con: this improves the chances if the world to devolving into an authoritarean hellscape

I think it’s likely (at least in the short term) that we all pay the burden of increased fraud: higher credit card fees, higher insurance premiums, a less accurate court system, more dangerous roads, lower wages, and so on.

I think the author is brushing against some larger system issues that are already in motion, and that the way AI is being rolled out are exacerbating, as opposed to a root cause of.

There's a felony fraudster running the executive branch of the US, and it takes a lot of political resources to get someone elected president.

There are also many biological examples of evolution producing "anti-social" outcomes. Many creatures are not social. Most creatures are not social with respect to human goals.

A sure sign that this is completely, utterly, decoupled from market forces is the way that a 5M-person streaming platform (which likely has negative margins or is struggling to make profit) is expected to pay $0.45/user, while Netflix is expected to pay 1.5 cents per user.

I would guess that this is because the larger the number for major players, the more incentive they would have to invest in supporting open standards (or try and get a standard of their own).

This is evidence that the patent system is not doing what it's supposed to be doing imo.

Looks to my uneducated eye like China has been enforcing competitive markets internally, with consistent economic policies. Meanwhile the US has stopped enforcing antitrust altogether and keeps violently changing its mind about economic policy every four years.

And then externally Chinese policy is oriented around suppressing the value of its currency, which is basically a monopolist's tactic--artificially lowered prices in order to crowd out competition.

I think that's mercantilist-ish, but kind of a modern version?

It's definitely the opposite of what the US does, the currency is the world reserve and therefore drives the price of the dollar above what it would be without trade, which I guess makes exporting from the US much more difficult?

Anyone who is an expert in global economics please correct me here :)

"free market" is often used as a dogma against companies that are actively harmful to society

This is a predominantly America-specific piece of propaganda, and it's pretty recent.

Adam Smith's ideas are primarily arguments against mercantilism (e.g. things like using tariffs to wield self-interested state power), something he showed to be against the common good. The "invisible hand" concept is used to show how self-interested action can, under conditions of *competitive markets*, lead to unintentional alignment with the common good.

Obviously that's a significant departure from the way it's commonly used today, where Thiel's book has influenced so many entrepreneurs into believing Monopolies are Good.

But the history of this is very Cold War-influenced, where "free markets" were politically positioned as alternatives to the USSR's "planned economy", and slowly pushed to depart further and further from Adam Smith's original argument about moral philosophy.

The statement that "this is how it works, it's completely corrupt" is what enables the corruption.

It is only through the collective demand that systems serve us that they can be aligned.

If you believe that the system is corrupt then your decisionmaking function will conclude that taking action to demand systems serve you is useless.

But it's only useless if we collectively believe it is useless.

This is what I mean when I say that cynicism is malignant. The more people believe it, the more true it is.

And in some of those cases they can warp incentives, right?