HN user

skynotblue

2 karma
Posts0
Comments15
View on HN
No posts found.

There are a lot of claims here with no evidence, though it is understandable that companies with lax security measures would want anonymity.

A lot of sites that invest heavily in security leave low hanging fruit because their security efforts are not focused on all fronts. [Ex: A company might be investing a lot of resources making sure Application Code is secure (Application Security) but leave an insecure s3 bucket (Cloud Security)].

It is possible that your agent exploited these structural gaps.

The phases your agent executed mirror standard workflows used by existing, generic systems (e.g., Claude Code, Antigravity Agent, Codex). I'm sure any of these generic agents would find the same vulnerabilities that your agent found. The article makes it seem like your agent is novel technology when it's not.

Would love to see how smaller distilled models perform with this agent enabled.

Frontier models already had all the Q/A in their training dataset and there's not much activity there anymore so very little use for searching new Q/A.

Everything you said is true and inteligence agencies should not be above the law. But the logical response to that is to fight for strict oversight, judicial reform, and to disallow the misuse of those tools, not to abolish surveillance entirely. A broken system should be fixed, not thrown away (unless there is an alternative better system which is not plagued with these issues).

"This isn't true" - not an argument

"Privacy is dangerous" - i never said that.

Internet pseudonymity from other strangers on a public forum is very different from being anti-surveillance. I am not sure how you could equate the two.

I would have absolutely no problem if the state contacted HN to obtain my IP access logs and other identifying information if I were to post something illegal here. Expecting privacy from random internet users is not the same thing as demanding immunity from law enforcement.

People are less likely to commit crimes if they know the state has the tools to identify and prosecute them. Surveillance provides that capability, and reducing it makes solving and deterring crime much harder.

The cost is manageable as long as it's used for the right reasons and that the data is kept secure. The benefits of deterring violence outweigh those risks.

Billionaires may be a bigger threat but criminals are a threat nonetheless.

Early projects need centralized governance. Even Firefox operated this way early on.

But the flip side is the anti-capture mechanism isn’t “the community decides.” It’s “Chris and Andreas decide, forever.”

You mention earlier that Chris and Andreas can sign off on any bylaws change. Since they can amend the bylaws, they can decentralize governance as the project matures. "Forever" is a stretch.