> Those who resist AI and/or fail to set high expectations for themselves will have to settle for lower income and status.
It's great that we're spending all those resources making the world worse. \s
80 karma · joined November 27, 2024
It's great that we're spending all those resources making the world worse. \s
I keep seeing this statement as a prelude to "AI changes everything", but my experience never really had me see writing as the bottleneck, but rather designing (technical and not) and supporting what's already there while building the next thing. If anything, being able to execute faster puts more pressure on those two parts of the process.
As an aside, the review carousel and the star button at the bottom feels a bit misleading: at a glance, you'd think it's about OpClaw, but it's not. Combined with the lack of policy information on the page, it doesn't exactly instill trust. Given that folks seem to provide the bot way too much access, it's important to know more about who you're dealing with and how they act as a intermediary.
What's your pitch on why users should trust this?
Not dystopian at all. \s Let's not give more ways for organizations to monitor people.
This feels like a closed-source, more rustic variant of Minio or Garage. What would set this apart from those?
[1] https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/H6TX02236/?tab=about-cand...
Edit: added year to disambiguate.
Just a hot take, but perhaps the focus shouldn't be "how can we ensure that nigh-preteens can connect to the office network".
That aside, legislating on whether VPN access is legal or not is still a ridiculous and dangerous idea.
Not everything needs a touchscreen.
<no-longer-relevant>Given that it captures messages and processes them somehow, having visibility into the business logic involved would help create trust (especially so since "messages that sound more heated than intended" implies that message content is being sent out to a third-party LLM).</no-longer-relevant>
EDIT: I ended up pulling the source from wherever the browser extensions live out of curiosity, I take that part about third-parties back. Given how many of these extensions feel like data grabs, I'd suggest leaning more on the "this doesn't make any network requests to anything" angle. It's a huge plus when handling sensitive data. Now, saying it doesn't quite replace posting the source upfront so users can audit it themselves, but it's a great step in the right direction.
Agents also very rarely are truly hands-off: most of my usage is walking through a pre-determined set of steps and course-correcting along the way. In my experience, having it run out of sight leads to heavier editing since smaller realignments couldn't be applied along the way.
Presumably, the audience this is meant for would have no problem with command-line tooling.
Those feel like pretty mild annoyances resolved by either taking those as an opportunity to try and drive change (in cases like lengthy standups, lackluster ticketing and codebase quality) or as something you can try to look the other way on 9-5 so you can focus on the parts you enjoy (during or outside of work hours). Taking a step back for perspective, software development is a pretty cozy and privileged career path compared to some others (exceptions apply: I would not wish looking for entry-level roles now to anybody, and I feel for folks affected by layoffs and stuck in the grinder).
That being said, there's no reason for tools like it to have those constraints other than pushing users into an ecosystem they prefer (i.e. GitHub instead of other forges).
It does go in the direction I thought it would though. I'd be curious to see (or to take) a look a little deeper at what those thousand of packages are.
It's interesting to see the periodic rediscovery of "capitalism + technology relies on unpaid, voluntary labour", or as the author puts it, "Open source, the thing that drives the world, the thing Harvard says has an economic value of 8.8 trillion dollars".
The one flaw that I see in the author's analysis though is that they don't seem to account for whether the packages accounted for by their source have dependents or monthly downloads. There's *a lot* of dead code out there. When excluding abandoned packages, I bet the picture is still grim, but it might be less so.
Citation needed.
In any case, I wouldn't call divesting from US tech infrastructure a futile endeavour: wouldn't a move to EU services (especially given that the author is based in the EU) allow benefitting from the EU's data protection / sovereignty legislation? That alone would be an net improvement over the laissez-faire approach that US has about people's data, aside from at least trying to go against the flow of technological centralization around the US.
Now, you can debate whether those protections are effective or not, but at least it's something to build from.
On the flipside, Brave went kinda weird with crypto and embedded it in the browser rather than having it be something you can tack on via extension if that's your jam.
They certain bring something interesting to the space, but hitching themselves to the cryptocurrency wagon lost some people (myself included) along the way.
At the very least, I hope the conversation is still alive enough for groups to invest in mirror registries to have some form control over external dependency sources. At [previous gig], it's something that always felt like an expense that needs a lot of justification with the powers that be despite feeling like table stakes for keeping a revenue-generating app up in the long term.
TIL, it's a mix of private venture and public money [1], depending on which cables we're talking about. The ownership of those cables is also interesting [2] (granted, the source is a bit dated, but I can imagine that's still a trend):
> The leaders of today’s boom are two of the biggest generators of data traffic: Google and Facebook. Internet companies are behind about four-fifths of transatlantic cable investment planned for 2018-20, up from less than 20 percent in the three years through 2017, according to TeleGeography. Google has become “by far the biggest investor” in submarine cables, even taking full ownership of two of them—a reflection of the vast amounts of data the company transmits, says Mike Conradi, a lawyer at DLA Piper in London who’s been working on undersea fiber deals since 1999. Content companies “can make or break these cables.”
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_communications_cable...
Edit: Formatting.