rexer

> If it’s not worth writing, it’s not worth reading.

Would you extend that approach to the conversations you have with AI? If not, why not?

Are you saying that because it’s across company boundaries? Or would you be similarly upset if one result was for a Toyota Highlander? Or for a Toyota RAV4 XSE but not the LE trim

I gotta say, I think you’re in the minority. I suspect most folks appreciate the cross shopping suggestion

What would an EV muscle car look like? Tesla Model 3 seems to check a lot of boxes. Definitely not noise or muscle car power delivery, but those seems like unrealistic goals for an EV

Truly appreciate the perspective. Any pointers to previous work on dealing with stochastic systems from the past? Part of my work is securing AI workloads, and it seems like losing determinism throws out a lot of assumptions in previously accepted approaches.

I read the full article (really resonated with it, fwiw), and I'm struggling to understand the issues you're describing.

> Yes of course relationship questions don’t have a “correct” answer. But physics questions do. Code vulnerability questions do. Math questions do. I mean seriously?

Can you say more? It seems to me the article says the same thing you are.

> I don’t actually think the above paragraph makes any sense, does anyone disagree with me? “Instead of planning we observe and hypothesize”?

I think the author is drawing a connection to the world of science, specifically quantum mechanics, where the best way to make progress has been to describe and test theories (as opposed to math where we have proofs). Though it's not a great analog since LLMs are not probabilistic in the same way quantum mechanics is.

In any case, I appreciated the article because it talks through a shift from deterministic to probabilistic systems that I've been seeing in my work.

Framing is everything, though. See complaints around Tesla pricing for the same battery hardware with different software.

I think they agree with you. Did you read the second paragraph?

You’re implying any real system can have a single top priority, which is equally false. There are always multiple priorities, and the one sitting at the top changes based on the context

> I've never not edited or scrapped it the next day.

There's definitely a balance. Showing a little emotion can be a good thing, necessary even

Do you think Iran will have nukes in the near (20 years, just to put a number) term? Your position really only makes sense if that's not the case. By whatever means, the goal now seems to be to prevent that.

> I don't think we have a better option

I'd love help getting on board with this

Certainly there’s a feedback loop, impossible to say which came first

I think this downplays the security issue. It's true that scoping the token correctly would prevent this exploit, but it's not a reasonable solution under the assumptions that are taken by the designers of MCP. LLM+MCP is intended to be ultra flexible, and requiring a new (differently scoped) token for each input is not flexible.

Perhaps you could have an allow/deny popup whenever the LLM wanted to interact with a service. But I think the end state there is presenting the user a bunch of metadata about the operation, which the user then needs to reason about. I don't know that's much better; those OAuth prompts are generally click throughs for users.

It’s at least restricted to http servers. Certainly more once you include domain specific conventions

Odd. Your take is the one I see most common on HN. My experience has been that Reddit has gone mainstream and most people find it quite valuable