okamiueru

And how do you suppose that happens when it's running in a sandbox that prevents things like network access?

It does require that the human driver knows what they are doing. It captures the pre-AI developer mindset of developing a mental model along side writing the code. This has always been iterative, in discovering the model that results in high cohesion and low coupling.

That doesn't work if the driver cannot steer properly. It's the main issue with vibe-coded one-shotted solutions, that might look impressive until you peek underneath and it's all a mess.

Surely I'm not alone in finding it disturbing how little regard people seem to have for the use of energy.

In your evaluation of the stupidity, aside from considering the potential averse affect the agent could do to your system, did you also factor in possibly sharing any and all data in your system to an external party?

They have had access to plenty of A/GPL software. They are all highly problematic from an ethical and legal point of view.

Gotta pump it as much as possible before the IPO.

I can think of at least one other pretty good reason, which is in anticipation of regulatory capture. If "LLM used must be FOOBAR-certified" and coincidentally no Chinese models can get this certification, having such an alternative is a lot more valuable than just scoring highest in a set of benchmarks. Not to mention that these benchmarks aren't always accurate.

Golden age before the age that ends humanity. Not talking about any "rogue AI", just the known statistical models of what is coming due to climate change.

All of the things you mention here are fairly obvious. But that doesn't make any of the reporting misleading. The parts that record audio, transcribes audio, scans networks for devices, and perhaps more importantly persists all of these records, combined with easily exploitable vulnerabilities, was one of the issues raised.

> What would be worthwhile is what is actually sent.

For you, perhaps? But again, that was covered in an earlier segment.

You still have to point out the part that was misleading.

Did we watch a different video? The point of hacking the TV, and making it do bad thing. Was to explain the privacy issues inherent with the hardware capabilites for video and audio recording, which combined with multiple known exploits to gain access.

It's a long video, and they cover more than one issue. Please explain what, in particular, you found was misleading.

If it matters, it seemed pretty clear to me. You're also explicit about it, so I'm not sure how one would think you were referring to mouse input. Unless people type by clicking on a virtual keyboard? Benefit of the doubt can only stretch so far.

Can you give some specific examples? In my experience (which I also verified to make sure), all of the things you mention act on keydown. The exceptions are on multi-key combinations, which follow a special key that is held down while modifiers are entered, where the action is completed by releasing this special key (ALT + TAB [...TAB | SHIFT]) being a common example.

TAB is otherwise immediate, as is ESC, and the examples of typing, as well. So I'm left wondering, how do they have it wrong?