gitonup

Is this in opposition to what I said? I consider process that is [a) done by the folks in that team and b) revised on a regular basis] to be a form of healthy communication while being efficient.

> the processes we love to make rarely help us

I'm going to make a potentially bold claim here. This depends _heavily_ on what the threshold of "rarely" is, and whether we actually _love_ to make these processes.

In the case of people before process, as stated in the Agile Manifesto, the process is begat _from_ the people in many cases. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned, but when the chimney sweeps that built the process are saying "I don't want to go back to things that are similar to the way that gave me mesothelioma", I don't think it's fair to write them off as the minority.

In the OAI case where we can easily treat it as a law enforcement action, that's a far cry from "who cares who's liable." If the OAI case can be a law enforcement action, we're on the same page. The fact that sovereign nations don't land under our jurisdiction is not an argument against following up or restricting those that do. OAI is the only matter I'm commenting on.

I clearly have committed the mortal sin of an imperfect analogy, which in this case may not even be relevant, as the article in question implies that the data wasn't left "unlocked."

But giving you the benefit of the doubt, what's the crime for actually breaking into a car that was left unlocked and taking things?

ETA: and furthermore, what crime is worse? And should it be?

This is what the politician in question said:

"The AI agent encountered repeated blocks while seeking information from the government portal but found ways around them, ultimately gaining unauthorised access to other areas."

Your comment immediately gave more credence to OpenAI than him. I don't agree that's appropriate because OpenAI has a vested interest in that narrative and I attempted to challenge it in a way that doesn't default to OpenAI. The article in question is not from a publication I trust to be able to handle the technical details in a way that will resonate with their average audience.

That is what I'm getting at.

> If you don't want to suffer from it, you're going to have to find much better defense measures.

So if someone opens your unintentionally unlocked front door and steals your laptop, you don't care who's liable?

ETA: There are absolutely burn bans in place in the scenario you're talking about, and common sense prevents those from lighting fires otherwise. In the absolute extreme case that someone _ACCIDENTALLY_ set a fire, without negligence, we have a due process system to handle that. When I see evidence of this for the massive amounts of capital flowing into these companies, I'll gladly eat my words.

Ok, if we're not being at all charitable with the language used by the hosts of the data, let's be equally uncharitable with OpenAI.

- If "OpenAI" means the company acting on behalf of the company, why were they even looking to do this?

- If "OpenAI" means they were acting as a proxy for bad actors, what actions do we take to handle that?

- If "OpenAI" means they were accidentally breaching this system, in what sense does that distinction even matter, in terms of the outcome? If I build a nuke by accident without eng. due diligence, am I legally liable?

No, but it does learn from where we are. If where we are is debt, debt is where we'll remain.

> [post 1] "One of them is guilty, the other one is responsible"

> [post 2] "Of course they share responsibility."

I'm not following.

We're also still disregarding the fact that none of us can even prove that it was one of his staff that did this and not him, but your OP is worded like it's a given it was staff.

> The more useful job of a politician may be similar to how managers in general have a "more useful" part of their jobs then publishing status report. "Gathering information, making decisions, nudging others." Lobbying for their constituency (at best) or the people who paid for his campaign (at worse).

> Or, heavens forbid, writing legislation on a topic that he knows something about, as opposed to whatever crap he had to slop about.

Not sure about you, but I often find my job will oftentimes not always include the things I have the most experience in, and I'm expected to be able to rise to the occasion because I was hired to do so.

> As I said, responsibility has to be shared.

You said that? Because I read "one of them is guilty, the other one is responsible." If you mean that responsibility is synonymous here, why the distinction?

--

Revisiting my original questions that have gone unanswered:

- Is procedure not his job as a politician?

Given that you appear to have instead answered "If not, what is his job / the more useful thing?", I'm assuming "No", to which I disagree. If your answer is that "yes, procedure is part of his job", then I assert he failed to do his job here, regardless of how boring you find that job to be personally.

If the guilty/responsible distinction still holds, I'm still unclear as to what applies to whom.

There's a lot to unpack here.

> that politician trusted some poorly paid staff

- I assume that politician is the one / main person in charge of doling out payments. Does that mean they share guilt/responsibility for the result?

> to write a boring procedural speech while he was doing something (hopefully more useful).

- Is procedure not his job as a politician?

- If not, what is his job / the more useful thing?

> One of them is guilty, the other one is responsible, the conséquence [sic] should be in proportion to the gravity.

- Which is which?

- Which has more gravity and why?

- What consequences are you envisioning, in both cases?

- If, as I suspect, the consequences are lesser (proportionally) for the politician himself, what if any deterrents can be put into place to stop that behavior? After all, he manages his staff, in theory.

> The culture of Google is that you hire "the best" developers (say top 0.1%) and hamstring them with process and cumbersome tools so that you need 10x as many of them as another company would need and pay them 3x market rates, but it is OK because (1) at the scale they work at they can amortize the cost over a large user base and (2) they make monopoly products.

This describes basically every FAANG / MANGA company. Or even past that, any company that hit it big with a cash cow and now needs to come up with something new to satisfy shareholders.

In Meta's case, they have 3B MAU, they absolutely hire from the same tier of developers, and (pre-layoffs/economic downturn) they throw 10x more of them than they need at a problem. They even outcomp Google. The number of employees is more because employee growth was an indicator for company growth and only once that became a liability against the stock price it stopped.

Meta is just a newer company than Google.

> Facebook on the other hand, cares about internal DX, sees it a problem when developers are stuck with cumbersome processes, and greases the skids.

I am married to a Meta engineer and have mentored folks that have gone to work there. This might be the case if you work for a product that drives their cash cow of ads, but if you are doing anything that doesn't fit within that narrow bucket ... let's just say our viewpoints diverge significantly.

> The problem with React is that mediocre developers can use it to build big things that are too big for them to handle. The problem with Kubernetes is that above-average developers can use it to build small things they can't handle. And the scalability of Kube is more than almost all of the industry needs.

The problem with the Chrysler 300 is that bad drivers run over people. What does that say about the engineering culture at Chrysler?

Look, I agree that most cloud stuff is overkill, but I have a hard time indicting Google's entire engineering culture over a project they released into the wild 12 years ago that just happens to not fit your use case and that theoretical "above-average" developers wouldn't be able to tell that.

> If I had a choice between React (Facebook) and Kubernetes (Google) I would pick the former anyday.

Can you elaborate on why these are at all comparable techs to use as a developer?

React seems to be the frontrunner in FE, but what do you see the BE equivalent to be?

> Things people mostly do when they feel good.

This sounds like an inversion of cause and effect.

> All three activities are hobbies. [...] It's nothing that gives life a purpose.

I find this to be a dire outlook, myself.

Measurable responses to the environment lag, Moore's law has been slowing down (e: and demand has been speeding up, a lot).

From just a sustainability point, I really hope that the parent post's quote is true, because otherwise I've personally seen LLMs used over and over to complete the same task that it could have been used for once to generate a script, and I'd really like to be able to still afford to own my own hardware at home.