legostormtroopr
Joined 10 years ago
Joined 10 years ago
Contract law has evolved because transfering the ownership of things is fraught with difficulty. Ownership as a concept itself is notoriously hard to define.
Consider housing - when you buy a house you own that land. Except if its an apartment, you just own the internal walls. Or when the government aquires your land through eminent domain. Or mineral rights - which don't belong to you, you just own the top 5 feet of topsoil. Or if you neglect a property and some squats in it. Or if you were given a fraudulent payment, and they take back the property.
Just getting people to agree is notoriously difficult when people have different often conflicting desires.
Yes - TikTok is popular, precicely because the algorithmic feeds are designed to be addictive. They show content, not because its good, not because its what you ask for, but because its exactly what will keep your eyes glued to the screen.
I would assume that the majority of users would prefer a Facebook experience that showed them just the friends and family they follow, and nothing else.
Because OpenClaw (well, all AI) is well known for following instructions correctly.
https://au.pcmag.com/ai/116091/meta-security-researchers-ai-...
> "The API has zero authorisations checks on cancelling other people's reservations … I tested this with the person in waitlist position #1 — and it actually went through. So you've moved from #4 to #3 already," it messaged back.
The AI systemm didn't hack anything, it lightly touched with a feather duster and the server crumbled.
The AI system probably found swagger documentation of each endpoint, figured that the reservation cancellation API was worth a shot, and then found there was no authentication.
What is the "hack" here?
I find it ironic that the people who originate the idea of AI-code-spam are being negatively impacted by this.
But all they will do is build an AI agent to review the code written by an AI agent, that probably never needed to be written to begin with.
A human also knows they might get punished if it messes up bad enough, which might cause it to think twice before doing something bad. For an AI there is a reward, but there is no risk.
So while both might lie, only the human will be worried that it will be found out. That makes a difference.
You are publicly proposing “throwing all Republicans through a window to their death”.
This isn’t normal, and it isn’t right. If we allow anyone to call for political violence, then we become numb to it. Worse still, your call to violence against Republicans gives them a call to defence, and then a call to preemptive action.
“It was ok for us to shutdown HackerNews because they called for our deaths.”
We shouldn’t tolerate calls to political violence from anyone. Be better.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/29/schools-a...
So does the National Council of Teachers of English. https://ncte.org/teaching-maia-kobabe/
Just because can't believe that people would promote a comic with explicit texting and sexual imagery to children doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Secondly, this is pure AI slop. There are 2 commits - "Initial commit" and "Trim feature table" where you changed the README.
Why would anyone use this? Has anyone read any of the code? Do you even understand how (or if) it even works?
Surely, it would be a flex to show that your AI agents are so good they make electron redundant.
But they don’t. So it’s reasonable to ask why that is.
Isn't that a bit circular - if you already know the authoritative source, why ask a model?