1. Attack surface for agents is tantamount to a virus.
2. Any way for an agent to touch something is a potential compromised vector.
3. The mitigation is controlling the blast radius.
4. Sandboxing capability will have to be baked into architecture.
5. Mitigation includes measuring cost of blast radius.
6. All agent orchestration will likely require an andon cord.
Did you read the paper? There exists a technology that has purely enforceable property rights. What is that actually worth? I don't know.
Yeah yeah, I've read the arguments about liquidity issues, shutting down the rails, making it illegal to trade, etc. but that's beside the point and depends on a thousand future variables to play out. So I don't know if btc will make it or not, but I do know property rights mean everything to humans. They literally determine whether not one is a slave (I am my own property). So just the ability to have a technology enables pure property rights to a world where nobody really has enforceable property rights over anything seems pretty interesting to me.
A 5$ wrench bar is enough to make you give me all the moneroj you have eventually. I won't know when that point is and will just continue using the wrench until I am sufficiently sure you have given me all.
> So just the ability to have a technology enables pure property rights to a world where nobody really has enforceable property rights over anything seems pretty interesting to me.
Bitcoin doesn't enforce property rights. The only thing you own is your bitcoin. The fact that I "own" my house and the land it is built on is enforced by the state with guns.
You're not getting what I'm saying. Before this technology, the concept of property rights could not be defended, depending on the attacker. This tech allows that, even if it is just for one use case.
How many degrees of separation is this from adult regulation? Want to provide age information to a site so you can look at porn without any guarantee that information won't be used for additional profit? That's a real thing in the US.
Government assumes zero expected trust reciprocation because they don't have to provide trust reciprocation and can do what they want, and government is comprised of co-opted humans.
Err on the side of sovereign freedom. Arguing about banning this or regulating that is all second principle stuff, and nanny states all strike me as the tail-end of civilization.
I value my kid not being exposed to porn as a child well above your right to privacy while watching it.
The ubiquity of the internet and children’s access to it is something we haven’t reckoned with yet. The differences between pre social media and mobile vs now is immense. The people seeking to capitalize on getting children addicted to something are numerous and well motivated by LTV.
Their incentives and the wellbeing of children are directly at odds. We already regulate things that are addictive for children.
People might give their kids a drink extralegally. Nobody is saying “hey kid, why don’t we watch porn together so you can develop healthier habits.” Nobody is creating a “starter Instagram” with their teenage daughter.
These forms of media are NOT SAFE FOR KIDS. They have observably negative population wide outcomes and are as reasonably banned as lead in pipes.
Oh, I don’t let my children have electronic devices at all.
But schools do. Their friends all have Internet enabled devices in their pockets. The library he goes to has poorly secured devices. The school library does too.
This is what I mean by the ubiquity of the internet. It is functionally impossible to control access to the internet as a parent and allow your children to develop independence.
I do what I can, and have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars at this point to opt in to like minded environments. My oldest at ten is observably different than children at his age and doing great.
His friends that come from poorer families, like the ones that I grew up in, might as well have Roblox as a third parent and suffer from ridiculous behavioral problems. The school curriculum in SFUSD is years behind my curriculum was in Georgia when it was a bottom quintile outcome program.
It does not take much looking to see something is thoroughly wrong. I think a lot of it has to do with the mass experiment of Internet access we’ve run on children.
Funny enough I lived in the Atlanta metro area from 1996 to 2022. I had a house built in Decatur in 2003.
I started dating my now wife in 2011. She lived in Alpharetta. As soon as I met my now step sons who were 9 and 14, my first thought was in going to have to sell my house and move. There is no way in hell they are going to survive Decatur public schools.
We moved to Johns Creek at first and then had a house built in Forsyth County. Yeah this Forsyth County
The attitudes in the burbs of Forsyth changed since then as people came from other places and it grew. But we very much stuck out. My son loved it there and still lives in that area and rents a house nearby where you use to live.
Strangely enough I live in the same general area - right in the middle of Gwinnett. What an odd coincidence that the three of us happened to come across eachother in an HN thread before knowing this.
"It does not take much looking to see something is thoroughly wrong."
Agreed, but observation suggests that it takes much more effort to do something about it—effort that the majority cannot muster or are unwilling to commit to.
"Want to provide age information to a site so you can look at porn without any guarantee that information won't be used for additional profit?"
That's the Orwellian payoff: people self-censoring and frightened to act for rear of retribution or their reputation. It's the authoritarian's ideal approach to control.
Aside: The 1.3B investment in UHC suggests BH thinks Obamacare will be around for awhile. That, or reversing healthcare costs will not happen for the time being.
"An elegant weapon, for a more civilized age." Heavy opinion: Combined with AI, there is a story for unified app development. Something like Ada for the L1 and trust reciprocation, then something that creates app domain vocabularies for L2 development. That of course would be lisp.
Sorry, but I don't get the meaning of your phrasing. I think that to use AI you must be very explicit and clear about what you want to design, and if Lisp provides some advantages one should define accurately the specific tool to use and when, how, and why.
I recall Norvig mentioning that other computer languages have taken many ideas from Lisp, those languages are also in the new civilization. Just to give an example: destructing-bind, apply and others are now done in javascript with a shorter syntax, and javascript without macros has excellent speed.
The quoted portion is a reference to an XKCD strip from earlier this century, https://xkcd.com/297/, which is a reference to Star Wars.
Their use of L1 and L2 should be read as "L" as "level" L1 is lower level, L2 is higher level. They're suggesting using Ada (or some other well-suited language) for the lower level trusted systems language and Lisp for the application language.
What it has to do with AI, I don't know. People want AI everywhere now.
Exactly. So let's expand. A good reason to have AI everywhere is that it is capable of giving you a fair answer for just about anything. So ask it to do some data analytics stuff, like what Tableau or PowerBI can do. It can provide maybe 60% of the same functionality that most users require (provided data access, blah blah). Ask it do patient pre-triage. It will get you within 60% of a ballpark answer. Ask it to diagnose a car problem, or a crop rotation plan. Once again, it get's you in the ballpark. So what I'm suggesting is, the current state of the art has no Dunbar limitation and no bias toward any particular domain. It's like a 10k person team that doesn't care what it's solutioning (L1). Generalize the L1 to provide high assurance foundational functionality (workflows, custom workitems, some general way and tools to get from a strategic opinion to an executable fact).
People are still limited by Dunbar's number, so they need domain specific vocabularies to help them describe solutions to smaller groups. Maybe a direction exploitable by lisp at the L2 level.
But with an AI native L1, it doesn't care about the domain but would need to hold up the whole organization. Ada assurance. So it produces a 60% solution that has to be consumable by any particular L2. Multiple enterprise apps with a common base layer. No need to provide connectors or bridging apps for separate ERP, SCM, BI, HR vendors. Complete line of site, real time analytics and real time budget adjustments, eliminating need for budget cycles. It's kind of the Deus Ex God app. Deprecates need for separate Salesforce, Oracle Fusion, Tableau apps, separate vendor expenses, etc.
Forgive, but that smells of youth and recency bias. How do you judge lisp and k/qdb? Is C# the best language? Is Nim anachronistic? How would you write a desktop app using your exact same codebase on Win, Linux, Mac? That would be Free Pascal. Or maybe the desktop is now anachronistic, even though it still produces a richer UX.
Many languages have their great qualities. Whether or not they're outdated is a determination full of biases. Measure the language choice against resources and potential revenue. I'd be happy to write an app in Ada to proclaim its advantages as a sales pitch.
I just don't see Ada used a lot anymore. This isn't a value judgement on it being "good" or "bad", lots of bad languages (like PHP) end up getting very popular, and lots of cool languages (like Idris) kind of languish in obscurity. Don't mistake me saying popularity is proper metric for how "good" something is.
When I say "anachronistic", I don't mean it as a bad thing either, just that it's not used a lot anymore. I've literally never heard of anyone writing an Ada application in the last twenty years outside blogs on HN.
I think the bias noose has tightened a lot over the years, so we don't avail ourselves to experiement like we used to - no chance for critical mass now that the profession has become so commoditized. It was wide open when I first started and devs were using all kinds of toolchains. The most money I've ever made selling applications (in today $) was from a TP (DOS) then later Delphi (Windows) codebase. Way back in 1991 I remember having a cigar with a client in SF and the dude wrote me a 70k check right there on the bar. What a huge thrill for me that was. Wild west of price and value discovery, which has totally disappeared.
One thing I do believe: the quality of software from MSFT has gone down, in part because their business model has gone from providing products to monetizing the users. Their products are just stagnant honeypots to collect data. This is opening a door for the small time dev to try new things, maybe with unpopular toolchains. I've got something that would be great for highlighting Ada's mission critical rep. Price and value discovery aren't dead (yet).
It failed because the C family is far superior - in mindshare and commodity dev experience. Ada may end up with a win to some degree if it plays to a narrative that all software needs to be mission-critical, no matter what the domain. Maybe in degrees, but that's actually true these days.
I did some consulting at a major US car manufacturer, and helped with a coding seminar, mostly in java. A fair chunk of those developers struggled with a fizzbuzz exercise. All I can say is this: don't leave your baby in the back seat of an autonomous car just to get out and recharge unless you have consequential trust reciprocation with the manufacturer tantamount to shutting them down if anything tragic happened. Of course, even that price is too low.
Comment generator: "Concerns about privacy invasions, adware, and forced updates in Windows are pushing users away. Many users are fed up with Microsoft "urging users to train their AI for free"."
1) Windows chatting behind your back causes distrust. And for good reason.
2) Yes, forced updates, but the consumers don't understand that they're just crofters in MSFT's world with all MSFT's products. MSFT will update as much as fits their needs to protect their property, not yours.
3) Re: adware. Part of your relationship with MSFT is that you are the commodity. It's a general internet business revenue model.
reply