the_mar

the open weight llms didn’t just happen to be as an act of god. someone created them and released them. i don’t see why they should not be liable.

that depends how you define hacking. i am not a lawyer, but i think there’s an element of some sort of gain (data, money), otherwise if a tree falls in the forest…

i think you misunderstand what i said. as much as i dislike ai ceos, i doubt anyone is setting out to build ai with explicit intent to do crime. they are just not doing a great job preventing it. just because they know it is in the training data, does not prove intent

why do people need to be 10x more productive?

personally, i want a 2 hour 3 martini business lunch, not to ship more slop at all hours of the day

idk abt you but i just replaced a faucet by watching a youtube video of a middle aged guy. ya’ll are using opus 5.5 for that?

i have non-tech friends who actually do personal software. personally i don’t have any desire to. i don’t think grandma would justify the valuation tho

what you mean why? most companies with spare cash payed 10-50x what they actually need in tokens, just to see how it goes. it’s useful, it’s not that useful, so while the price per token can increase, everyone is getting smarter about spend. and even price has a limit, you can’t make ai more expensive than a human, because then everyone would just hire humans.

idk what is this you people do, but most of my day is not spent on writing code. most of my day is spent in meetings abt budgets, timelines, evaluations, compliance and marketing. i don’t think ai is going to automate corporate circus anytime soon

you know what i miss? when slack didn’t exist. when it was perfectly acceptable to wait 2 business days to respond to someones fuckass email

i think when people say today’s prices they do not mean subscription tier, they mean the enterprise paying 10M+

as a person, i would absolutely not pay more than $1K for ai, because at that point i can just get myself a bartening job

but the argument here is that the ai company does not explicitly train agents to hack, it’s that it doesn’t prevent them from doing so sufficiently. so it’s negligence and not malicious intent

you generally need a license to operate a vehicle, and a governing body ensures you know applicable rules and laws and are capable of driving. so you can’t say “i was unaware that hitting a person with a car was going to kill them” or “i didn’t know i could not drive on the sidewalk” or “i didn’t know where the brake pedal was”.

you can say that asking an agent to “get you a spot in a class”, does not classify as deliberately committing a crime. a user cannot know that the agent will resort to hacking as opposed to refreshing the reservation page at some rate in case spots open up

im not sure that’s true, if a human agent does something illegal, it’s not always corporate liability. an individual can be liable too, e.g. if a pharmacist deliberately gives you cyanide instead of aspirin, that person has committed a crime. if a pharmacy doesn’t have proper protocols for medication storage and identification, and it happened by mistake then a pharmacy is liable.

i think a person can be liable for improper use of agents if they explicitly and deliberately used it for illegal purposes (aka intent). i don’t think it matters if it was openclaw or muse. i think a company can be also liable for giving access to unsafe product to consumers, but it does not absolve the human from responsibility

but it doesn’t auto-translate into “because your dog did it, you are not responsible”. not that agents are similar to pets. your dog is trained by you presumably, but an agent a regular person has much less understanding of than their dog.

i think ultimately the company providing said agents should be responsible for not educating their customers and not providing sufficient guardrails.

afaik hacking is illegal, we don’t have specific legal framework for agents per se, but if we say agent is a tool human instructs and operates, then a human is responsible. and if the tool operated outside of it’s stated capabilities or is otherwise faulty, then a manufacturer is responsible, no?

what do you mean “say what you will about climate change”