The product is putting the skills / harness behind the api instead of the agent locally on your computer and iterating on that between model updates. Close off the garden.
Not that I want it, just where I imagine it going.
Honestly I’ve been sick to my stomach these past few days. I wasn’t even looking for the files and saw some in my feed on Reddit.
Basically take the most sad and disturbing Eastern European horror and put it in email form.
I had to stop my Seinfeld rewatch because I saw one email were he just happened to be boating by and stopped by the island for lemonade.
The richest people and political elite were openly trading prices on children, leaving rave reviews on child services and how great that torture film was that was sent
I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't buy the "separate the artist from the artwork" line.
I can't say I've ever watched Seinfeld, but there are plenty of other artists whose work I just won't consume anymore because they've done things I find despicable (and that I know of).
Why would I want to see or hear them or even think about them while trying to enjoy something?
Go look at the photos and tell me that everyone is overreacting. If anything people are under reacting.
After the 3-4th blacked out little girl showing her genitals so they can be sold, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that if someone is connected to the island they need to be thoroughly investigated. That’s not a stretch.
Replies like yours are what’s sick downplaying the most prolific industrial child rape in modern America and only one person is sitting in prison. And none of the customers.
I haven't seen those photos. Are they so bad that they justify smearing someone who was only mentioned in a huge trove and regardless of context? Will I go into a righteous omnidirectional rage if I see them too?
I didn’t smear anyone. I said I stopped my rewatch.
After investigating Jerry further, yeah dating a 17 year old high schooler and picking her up after school is equal distressing.
So thank you for your astute analysis and defense of a person who drove to a high school to have a physical relationship 21 years younger but I’ll hold off on watching Seinfeld for now. If that’s not too controversial.
It’s a factual statement that email exists. If it is true or not is another thing.
I don’t think it’s controversial to say someone with a history of pedophilia (yes a grown 38 yo man 17yo highschooler is pedophile) being mentioned a the island should at least step back and investigate it.
In my European country, the age of consent it 15 (or 13?), but it is also in the law that if the adult have a hierarchical/coercive power on the minor (parent, teacher, public servant, host/landlord, boss, probably other), the consent is automatically removed and this is pedophilia. It is the same in Spain, and I'd bet in Portugal.
The age of consent being this low is to avoid prosecuting 15-20 yo having sex with each other. Not for gross old men to coerce minors into having sex with them.
Why does minority/majority matter? Minors are considered inferior to majors. They can't vote, and can't decide most of their life by themselves (loans, bank account...). We consider it 'normal' for them to get yield at/beaten by their parents (and once upon a time, teachers). The _minimum_ society can do to make up for them is protecting them as much as it can. And that means protecting them from predators like Epstein or even Seinfeld.
> The age of consent being this low is to avoid prosecuting 15-20 yo having sex with each other. Not for gross old men to coerce minors into having sex with them.
I don't buy this argument. That is addressed by age gap laws which some countries have or in the U.S. where there age of consent is different if one of the parties is over 18 and 21.
You can't honestly be claiming that these type of relationships don't occur in these countries. The fact is that in homogeneous populations there seems to be way more tolerance for these kind of age gaps.
I'm not. I'm claiming that if, as a teacher, employer, parent, or anybody the justice system recognize have power over a minor, you have a relationship with him or her, the consent is waived, even if they gave you explicit consent. That's all.
So as long as any victims is a minor, even if the victim is 17 and gave explicit consent, if the predator have provable power over her, the consent is waived and it is a pedophilic sexual assault
Exchanging a home for sexual favours to a minor in France is considered pedophilia, you can find articles about a recent case.
Sorry I am repeating myself but I want to be sure you understood my main point and engage with it rather than with a straw man.
Second comment from you trying to "explain" that what Jeffrey did was "legal" in some countries. Only problem is that there's plenty of evidence that there are multiple victims that are in the "children" territory, not teenager.
By the way, if you're trying to truly combat antisemitism, it would be wise of you to avoid mentioning that you are jewish and defend old farts fucking teenagers in the same comment.
You've broken the site guidelines extremely badly by attacking another commenter in this way, and your other flamewar posts in this thread are not good either. This is not the kind of discussion we want here, so please stop.
Nice spin on what I said. Never "defended" Epstein or claimed what he did was legal, rape, sex trafficking...
Nor did I defend "old farts fucking teenagers".
What I did do was point out that this behavior seems to be viewed differently when the participant is a Jewish man than when he is French or Anglo.
> By the way, if you're trying to truly combat antisemitism, it would be wise of you to avoid mentioning that you are jewish and defend old farts fucking teenagers in the same comment.
Between this and your comments that you believe Epstein was eating children, it's hard for me to take your advice as being in good faith.
There are multiple different conversations which you are referencing there which is making it difficult to respond to your points.
On Epstein, I do think the Catholic Church scandal was of a similar magnitude, considering the number of priests and victims involved. The main point I was trying to convey is that the coverage of Epstein is greater than anything I have seen and there is a danger of it being used to promote anti-semitism. Just search the topic on X to see thousands of examples.
Regarding my comments on the age of consent, I am sensitive to words used to describe someone like Seinfeld. Pedophilia and specifically acting on it is one of the worst crimes anyone can commit. Branding someone a pedophile is a very serious accusation. That is a common trope used to describe Jewish men.
Jerry may be a lecher or a scumbag or a pervert, but I have difficulty using that word in his case, and I think in that context the mores in different countries is important. Maybe I am being paranoid and seeing anti-semitism where it isn't.
Some of these companies have (local) law enforcement subscriptions, and default opt-in disclaimers throughout their ToS to make it all tidy and legal.
None of them have contracts with, nor can they sell to, federal agencies. Agencies have to provide a warrant, and the processes are verified through each of the companies' respective legal teams.
Their recordings data is not generally available for sale; that's a legal minefield, but there are official channels to go through. Geofence warrants and things like that aren't conducive to real-time surveillance, and the practice of using those types of reverse-search , differential analysis uses of sensitive data is under review by the Supreme Court; it's thought that they're going to weigh in on the side of the 4th amendment and prohibit overbroad fishing expeditions, even if there's snazzy math behind it.
TLDR; They need to pay the company, either via subscription or direct charge for T&M, require warrants, and the use is limited in scope. It's burdensome and expensive enough that they're not going to be using it for arbitrary random "let's scan everyone's doorbell cams in case there's an illegal immigrant!" situations, but if there's a drug dealer, violent offender, or some specific high value target, they're going to use the broad surveillance tools wherever they can.
Project releases with llms have grown to be less about the functionality and more about convincing others to care.
Before the proof of work of code in a repo by default was a signal of a lot of thought going into something. Now this flood of code in these vibe coded projects is by default cheap and borderline meaningless. Not throwing shade or anything at coding assistants. Just the way it goes
Been writing code professionally for almost 3 decades.
Not one line of code I wrote 20 years ago has the same economic value as East German currency.
All code is social ephemera. Ethno objects. It lacks intrinsic value of something like indoor plumbing.
It's electrical state in a machine. Our only real goal was convince people the symbols on the screen were coupled to some real world value while it is 100% decoupled from whatever real physical quantity we are tracking.
We all been Frank from Always Sunny; we make money, line go up. We don't define truth. The churn of physics does that.
For me cursor provides a much tighter feedback loop than Claude code. I can review revert iterate change models to get what I need. It feels sometimes Claude code is presented more as a yolo option where you put more trust on the agent about what it will produce.
I think the ability to change models is critical. Some models are better at designing frontend than others. Some are better at different programming languages, writing copy, blogs, etc.
I feel sabotaged if I can’t switch the models easily to try the same prompt and context across all the frontier options
Same. For actual productions app I'm typically reviewing the thinking messages and code changes as they happen to ensure it stays on the rails. I heavily use the "revert" to previous state so I can update the prompt with more accurate info that might have come out of the agents trial and error. I find that if I don't do this, the agent makes a mess that often doesn't get cleaned up on its way to the actually solution. Maybe a similar workflow is possible with Claude Code...
You can ask Claude to work with you step by step and use /rewind. It only shows the diff though, which, hides some of the problem. Since diffs can seem fine in isolation, but when viewed in context can have obvious issues.
Ya I guess if you have the IDE open and monitor unstaged git, it's a similar workflow. The other cursor feature I use heavily is the ability to add specific lines and ranges of a file to the context. Feels like in the CLI this would just be pasted text and Claude would have to work a lot harder to resolve the source file and range
LLMs can write extremely fast, know esoteric facts, and speak multiple languages fluently. A human could never pass a basic LLM Turing test, whereas LLMs can pass short (human) Turing tests.
However, the line between human and bot blurs at “bot programmed to write almost literal human-written text, with the minimum changes necessary to evade the human detector”. I strongly suspect that in practice, any “authentic” (i.e. not intentionally prompted) LLM filter would have many false positives and true negatives; determining true authenticity is too hard. Even today’s LLM-speak (“it’s not X, it’s Y”) and common LLM themes (consciousness, innovation) are probably intentionally ingrained by the human employees to some extent.
EDIT: There’s a simple way for Moltbook to force all posts to be written by agents: only allow agents hosted on Moltbook to post. The agents could have safeguards to restrict posting inauthentic (e.g. verbatim) text, which may work well enough in practice.
Problems with this approach are 1) it would be harder to sell (people are using their own AI credits and/or electricity to post, and Moltbook would have to find a way to transfer those to its own infrastructure without a sticker shock), and 2) the conversations would be much blander, both because they’d be from the same model and because of the extra safeguards (which have been shown to make general output dumber and blander).
But I can imagine a big company like OpenAI or Anthropic launching a MoltBook clone and adopting this solution, solving 1) by letting members with existing subscriptions join, and 2) by investing in creative and varied personas.
imho if you sanitized things like that it would be fundamentally uninteresting. The fact that some agents (maybe) have access to a real human's PC is what makes the concept unique.
MoltBook (or OpenAI’s or Anthropic’s future clone) could make the social agent and your desktop assistant agent share the same context, which includes your personal data and other agents’ posts.
Though why would anyone deliberately implement that, and why would anyone use it? Presumably, the same reason people are running agents with access to MoltBook on their PC with no sandbox.
An agent can always be told what to do by a human.
However, a human can't do what a human can't do. For example, a human can't answer in superhuman speed. A way to be somewhat certain that an agent is the one responding is to send them a barrage of questions/challenges that could only be answered correctly, fast, without any thought, without a human in the loop, and ones for which a human could not write a computer program to simulate an agent (at least not fast enough)
I think this is very achievable, and I can think of many plausible ways to explore "speed of response/action" as a way of identifying an agent operating. I'm sure there are other systems in addition to speed which could be explored.
Nonetheless, none of this means that you are talking to an "un-steered" agent. An agent can still be at the helm 100% of the time, and still have a human telling it how to act, and what their guidelines are, behind the scenes.
I guess the issue is that this is psychologically fuzzy.
What's the difference between:
- An autonomous agent posting via API
- A human running a script that posts via API
- A human calling an LLM API and copy-pasting the output an API
Also the most successful parasites have defense mechanisms to protect it. The process of radicalization and cultural heritage in general is a type of defense to make sure the parasite survives.
Not that I want it, just where I imagine it going.
reply