thomascountz

Also, small correction: any app with Full Disk Access can access this data.

A similar discussion came up recently with Siri Recap[1], where some expressed how useful they thought it was and that, as a party to the conversations it summarizes, there was very little moral or ethical concern. But I have a social concern.

If I'm having a chat with someone, there's a milieu constructed around the fact that not everything will be remembered verbatim. There are all sorts of social and contextual cues that can easily get lost if listening gets replaced by flat relentless transcription.

With Recaps and this social graph (were it to be productized), the informal fluidity in the way we relate to one another starts to go away, and the expectations that follow from that become artificial and burdensome. In the same way that autocorrect has made typos unacceptable, how could you ever be forgiven for forgetting the name of your colleague's new nephew or the Italian village that your neighbor took a spontaneous boat trip to while on vacation last year?

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49641401

Speaking of small phones, I'm still not sure why Apple doesn't make an iPhone SE or Mini again. Surely it will sell at least as many units as the Air or Duo?

   Toit is a language for writing scripts on your computer and applications on your ESP32. A readable syntax, an efficient runtime, and tools that work together.

   Free and open source. Maintained by volunteers.

   We're heading towards the end of the year and I still do not see how these copy-machines with "super intelligence" inside are going to replace humans. What they have done is convince those with money to spend differently on their fellow humans.

So, I want to keep pulling the thread: is it worth reading—meaning, understanding—the code in order to prevent p95 latency from skyrocketing, avoid OOM death, and keep our apps reliable for customers?

The cost of understanding the code is ostensibly very high relative to just using a clanker (citation needed), so does paying that cost translate to value—what is it worth? Concretely, if vibe coding increases bugs and enshittification, but decreases spending without decreasing revenue (read: customers suffer, but they don't leave), do we still need to pay the cost of reading code? Is it better to invest in stickiness, lobbying, and market capture?

This comment shouldn't be read as advocating for this; it's a thought experiment about pragmatism and trade-offs, and reflects what I'm witnessing companies (and "programmers") asking themselves. I personally care a lot about understanding systems and code, and I believe I'm paid to do exactly that (I very much enjoy understanding code and nobody is paying me to run a business, so I may be biased in this). In everyday SaaS-land—not talking about critical safety systems—we've seen production databases destroyed, personal data leaked, platforms unwittingly exploited, and UX bugs creep into our operating systems, and yet the companies involved keep on keeping on.

Is thinking, meaning taking the time to actually understand what our systems are doing, going to increase their shareholder value?

Furthermore, as an interviewer, my job is to be a candidate. Why should this person choose my team/company to work at? It's a privilege that anyone show up to join, and I ought to be as prepared to give answers as they are.

That said, any "feedback" I would give would be arbitrary. I am not this person's mentor and I shouldn't—after only 40 minutes—assume I know enough to give them feedback. Saying that I have concerns about not getting enough information, and that somehow being their "feedback," is bad framing. Try:

  Before moving on, I really want to make sure I get a full picture of your time at Acme working with the Foobar team. Would you say that you led project X? Who ultimately decided when it shipped and set deadlines? Was that part of your responsibilities?

I know TFA mentioned similar things about also being a candidate and that the "feedback" is to spur discussion, but the framing of giving "highly opinionated" thoughts about someone's capabilities as a way to ask questions is unnecessarily adversarial is an already power-imbalanced situation. I think it's better to try to tilt the power imbalance in the other direction—giving the candidate a feeling that you, the interviewer, are also auditioning for them. Doing that shows humility and, in my experience, gives a better opportunity to get to honest answers about being a good fit for each other.

What a time to be alive – rouge AI agents attack RubyGems.org (tenderlovemaking.com) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49695876 - Sept 2026 (123 comments)

But anyway, these scenarios assume the agent's actions are accurately observable and logged. Something I wouldn't put much faith in based on what we've been seeing so far.

That said, I can't completely hold onto the belief that extinction is completely off the table. That feels too much like hubris, and the step from collapse to extinction doesn't feel as if it costs much. Though it does make my arguments weaker, I am more interested in protecting civilization as it's the most recognizable form of humanity to me.

In either case, the cost-effective safety argument is compelling. Whether to save civilization or humanity, the wealth incentive is powerful enough to threaten life as we know it.

The delineation is to highlight that the underlying issues: human incentives, power, and institutional failure, existed prior to and without LLMs or computers. LLMs are not inherently harmful, they have to be deployed (unwittingly or otherwise) to make them so. This is the same as saying that the internet is not inherently harmful, and yet it does facilitate harm.

I also mean to say that "LLMs" carry no inherent harm to humans. To make an LLM dangerous, humans must make it so. Is that the goal? This has implications for how to read TFA.

   ...people to move to the poles/into caves/beneath the ocean/whatever