diegof79

Thanks for the description. I can imagine the benefits, not only in that situation but also in situations with hostages or bombs.

However, my point is that the technology also enables bad use cases, and you don’t need much analysis to see that.

The difference between a human cop and a robot is scale and a lack of empathy (although it is hard to attribute any empathy to some cops). You can send a swarm of robots to scan a neighborhood, with little human intervention. The purpose of that scan could be to catch terrorists, immigrants, or political dissidents.

The people who designed these things are pretty aware of that, but they do it anyway and now act as if surprised. It's like Lockheed Martin employees complaining about missiles; don’t work for a missile manufacturer in the first place.

The Boston Dynamics website describes the product as being used by the government to “remotely assess and de-escalate tense or hazardous situations.”

So I’d love to hear from one of those employees about how they imagined those use cases.

Either they have huge cognitive dissonance, or I’m too cynical, because I cannot imagine a situation where a robot designed to remotely spy (sorry, assess) or apply force, lethal or not (aka de-escalate tense situations), wouldn't end up being used for the wrong things.

The title got me interested. However, I couldn’t bear your site, sorry.

My feedback: cut the slop. I see a wall of text with explanations that are full of marketing phrases, filler sentences, and there isn’t a clear, curated explanation.

Again, sorry for my blunt feedback.

I know ;)

Some OOP professors who taught at LIFIA (like Maximo Prieto, who sadly passed away at the beginning of 2026) and UBA (Hernán Wilkinson) had a lot of influence at the University of Buenos Aires, La Plata, and Quilmes.

Happy to see something related to ESUG so up in HN.

Smalltalk still has a small group of passionate people who love the language, the environment, and its concepts.

For some reason, Buenos Aires has a “large” group of Smalltalkers (large relative to the total, which is small in absolute terms). This group usually organizes the ESUG event in Argentina with very few sponsors.

This comment should be at the top. The title implies a non-issue: macOS silently disappears because the poster didn’t try to change the page's badly designed filter. The latest version of macOS probably will appear in months.

Sadly, this isn't a Florida problem.

I don’t live in the US. But this kind of broad law is hard to implement without surveilling all users, and it has multiple side effects.

What happens if I use Claude or ChatGPT to research sensitive social topics? Would that be considered a social network interaction and used against me when I apply for a visa?

Many governments (especially in Latin America) copy what the US does, meaning that similar laws will be pushed sooner or later.

I agree with you that we use analogies to name new things, and that’s the way language works.

However, you can see an airplane flying. Still, you cannot see software processes at work, and that causes misunderstandings and misinformation, which is at the core of the changes that we are experiencing with AI.

This is a fragment of another article posted here on HN about an ongoing dispute between OpenAI and the New York Times:

“The defendants say this is a simple application of fair use: Their argument is that if you read a story and simply remember what was in it to expand your base of knowledge, that cannot be considered a copyright infringement”

However, if you replace “read” with “web scraping” and “expand your base of knowledge” with “storing the information,” the perspective changes too.

I couldn't reproduce the Color Picker bug mentioned at the end.

Just one small thing to add about the Color Picker: I think it's a good example of how native UI apps have changed over the last decade.

The macOS Color Picker is nice. The idea is to have a single color picker for the whole system. It's extensible, so apps can add their own custom pickers (for example, an OKLCH picker), and you can reuse your palettes across applications.

Sounds great! But most of the applications where you might care about those features (customization, sharing your color schemes, etc.) don't work with the native Color Picker: Figma, Adobe apps, all Electron-based apps, and so on. So the Color Picker's features are useless. That component of the system is exactly the same as it was when I got my first Mac in 2007.

There are multiple nice native features that apps don't use; over time, they become forgotten and barely maintained.

I don't know what the solution is, but at some point, I think Apple should take frameworks like Tauri or Electron into account and build integrations for developers who use them. I know the integrations exists (they are the native APIs), and it's the developers' responsibility to use them, but that's not happening, and it ends up affecting the UX.

This seems like a hot topic this week, (I just commented in a similar thread).

When I read the article, I had an NFT déjà vu: when NFTs were a hot topic, the “lie” was obvious to me, but the information online made me think I was missing something.

AFAIK, the Hugging Face incident could have been avoided with a firewall or something similar. Just isolate the internet access for real. What am I missing? Why did Nvidia suddenly post this? Is it just PR BS, or was there something else going on?

I didn't downvote you, but your last paragraph is unnecessarily aggressive.

I've worked with agents, and I agree with you that often there isn't another way to express the interactions.

However, I also think the terms ML uses in general are a mimicry that misleads people who aren't informed. Ask anyone outside SWE what they think “training” means, and they'll usually picture something being taught.

I don’t think anybody can change that now, but it’s useful to point it out.

Perhaps my use of the word “liability” adds noise to what I’m trying to express.

My argument is very similar to the article in the parent post:

The messages OpenAI published around the recent incidents emphasized their model capabilities but shifted away from their negligence in how they set up and monitor their evaluations.

Forget for a second about AI.

The agent harness is a process, like any other process in an OS.

You are a researcher running thousands of unattended automations that can hack a website without supervision. The first thing anybody will do is put security at various levels and isolate the network as much as possible. If something escapes your allow list, it should stop the processes as soon as possible.

You cannot foresee a bug in a server (like the Artifactory server in the Hugging Face incident). But you can isolate that server at the network level in the first place. So even if you give that server read-only access, no unexpected packets go out. It's not rocket science; it's something a billion-dollar company experimenting with what they promote as the biggest possible threat to humanity (if they do not handle it) could easily do.

They minimize their liability by changing the message to “oh look how powerful our models are, now we are going to have a public awareness report of the model deviations”. The message should be, “Sorry, we ran experiments without proper sandboxing; it’s our fault, and we changed our testing practices since then.” The former message puts all the blame on the smart, uncontrollable force of AI; the latter is what really happened: an irresponsible test over the Internet.

100% That’s what bothers me about the descriptions of the OpenAI incidents.

OpenAI's reports use language that minimizes their liability.

The first question should be what the organization was doing around those tests, and why they were so naive as to run them without fully isolating the network.

However, all the attention goes to the human-like conclusions in agent thinking traces, which creates a misperception of sentient AI for people who don’t know how the magic black box works.