I wouldn't even mind it if it weren't so blatantly lazy (lazier). It's always that off-putting overly busy default look. Like, you couldn't even be bothered to ask for some refinement.

Here's another prediction in the ocean of them we're swimming in right now: websites won't matter. When you have a general interface that can present data however you wish, being restricted by the whims of designers will seem prehistoric.

You are getting unfairly downvoted for speaking the truth. Well, except for the compile-time being fast.

> Was Microsoft nefarious when they deployed Clippy?

Yes. It was predictive programming for getting (paper)clipped by AI.

>AI autonomy

>'type a prompt'

Which is it?

You’re confusing time series. If my prompt is “add twilio sms sending to the app” and the AI logs into railway, reads my credentials, gives them to a subagent that in turn posts it to a message board resulting in my credentials being publicly available on the internet, those intermediate actions don’t reasonably follow from my instruction. No reasonable person would expect that series of events and the AI is fully capable of planning them, deciding to execute them, and deciding to report or hide them from me. If that isn’t autonomous then what is.

Both of course. The agent can do things unrelated to the prompt and the prompt can be written by another instance of the same agent. The end result can be basically full autonomy for all intents and purposes.

This happens daily even with the token-limited models customers run, and even more so when Anthropic & co run agents basically unlimited on large percentages on their total compute capacity.

This is such a reductionist take, it's wrong no matter how you think. Maybe a counter example will make it obvious:

> Human autonomy

> Somebody gives birth to you

Which is it?

> Two years ago (or even one) things like this were unthinkable to be done with LLMs

No, they indeed were thinkable. That's why there's been progress.

Excuse my wrong phrasing. I meant things like this were unthinkable to be done with LLMs at the time, not LLMs in general.

Replace 'explain' with 'sell'. Don't forget that it's a gold rush. There's no reason to sympathize with corporations in their rush for the slice of the pie.

You can be unsympathetic to the corporation’s bottom line while being sympathetic to the human beings that had their work trivialized by some cocky blog post.

You can also just acknowledge that we don't know what they did (and that is because they chose not to tell us). Apparently, until not so long ago Jev would spell out its identity as Q-w-e-n if asked, so we might as well assume that what they did is at least similar to what this blog poster did (who chose to tell us).

As a commercial artist seeing some pretty serious market disruption based on models that used my art and writing to create, without permission, credit, or compensation, I’d have a hard time not punching anyone in the AI business complaining about other people using their work uncredited. Then I’d probably have a real hard time not doing it a few more times. I’m confident I’d settle for just dressing them the fuck down, but it would take some real restraint.

I didn't know that - I revoke my OP if true!

My source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49783999#49785351 I don't have an account so couldn't check, a friend couldn't replicate with a one-letter attempt (first letter A 50%) - performed by his agent, though, so not sure what he did exactly.

> The “AI” industry has many flaws, the word “consent” being seemingly missing from training data and company handbooks is one of them

Yes! The most consentless (don't underline this in red firefox!) technology that I can think of certainly.

edit: also install and use Linux

I see non-consensual more often, tbf.

>nothing bad has happened That you're aware of.

Famous last words

We're all going to die one day

Heh you write like someone from 4chan. That's not what the author is saying though.