You're wrong on legislating these things. If the ad network is forced into KYC for their ad distributions and they are excluded from safe harbor, like a TV network would be, then I guarantee those ads cease to exist.
This mentality of "it's to hard" doesn't get things done.
I do agree that some greedy lawyers and civil liability would solve this, but that's not a long term solution at all.
Idiocracy continues to be a prophecy for sure. Idk about Terminator though, that's not what I'm concerned about at all. The first time I get triaged to an LLM over a doctor, I know society is cooked.
I said it's kinda cool. Like what more do you want? I could point out how useless it is in general, I can't say it would make a good learning tool, because it doesn't. But it is a novelty site that does make sound and show correct chord positions. Can you use it to compose something? Sure but the sound cutoff between chords and the need to pick a chord that strums down first before you can strum up means you'll always produce a sound you don't want and you can't even replicate picking.
I think you underestimate how creative people can be.
As a guitar substitute, sure, it's an approximation that can't possibly measure up. But as a modernized version of an autoharp, this could be a legit musical instrument.
The fact that it presents itself as a virtual guitar makes it accessible. You see it as a limitation. But limitations are actually great for creativity.
You are failing to answer the question. What's your point? I pose a question, I present what can be said, which sure I did say it in that comment to point at the extremes, but the question remains unanswered. What do you want of me? and now we have what's your point?
My point is hiding behind passive language like that is cowardly. You actively chose to do literally all of those things. It's not that you "could" do them, you did do them. Own up to it.
Nah, we just start opening the phones, cutting off some PBC patches, soldering some wires, and intercepting/synthesizing signals live. Keeping phones locked is just a zero sum game.
Yes, and bus encryption. I used to think "if a human made it, a human can break it" but that may no longer be true with disparate access to frontier models.
The path of the hacking skill just changes locations. There will always be a solution to break into systems you physically own.
You can’t encrypt everything in a way where I can’t hack my devices. Sure difficulty and risk will increase once you start hacking in the hardware, but it’s the hardware itself that will be the final vector. This was just the destination we were always headed toward anyways.
When the solution becomes "you need a nanometer precision stepper and an electron beam to modify the SoC's circuitry and dismantle the 'root of trust' that's making your hardware betray you to the corporate interests", you've lost.
We can't rely on hardware staying hackable. We couldn't ever since "secure boot" became a thing.
The harness was censored overnight as well. Can't ask it who won the 2020 election or who was the president in 2020 or 2000. It will say who is president right now though. Crazy shit really.
I agree with AI being useful for exactly the type of usecase you're thinking. Though I do want to point out a major flaw with trust in this specific harness. It got censored overnight.
Last night you could literally query and get factual information about election results; but today it wont even tell you who the president was in 2000.
That's lovely, I have screenshots of different behavior this morning. They undid it. This is hilarious. I retried right now and it's saying Biden won the 2020 election again.
It's already solved. I have two git repos proving these companies can fix the problems. The fact this continues just proves they don't care. In one project I literally containerize CLI coding tools, it works. You might say "sure, but network." I literally wrote a desktop app harness that you can toggle the network on/off too.
I sandbox my coding agents using bubblewrap, but I don't think it's as trivial a problem as you make it sound.
For something like muse that's supposed to be a general-purpose assistant, how do you give it enough access to be useful, without giving it too much access, and creating unacceptable risks? And how do you do that in a way that's comprehensible the average Facebook user who's the target market of this product?
Its really not as trivial as it sounds, especially as you expand it out into the workforce and you have complex ACLs that are gated by project, scope, budgets, people, etc.
Meta rushed this out, to grab relevancy, especially after losing out to Sam with OpenClaw.
I just dont fundamentally trust such a blackbox with my data. They've literally turned your data and your life into their biggest asset. For it to now have a level of control in your life just seems... irresponsible.
The problem is trivial to solve. Treat AIs like they are users. We have user space for a reason. We have linux namespaces for a reason. We have real airgap architectures where the data center can't even connect out.
When you're a company running around with more than a few billion in the vault, you have no excuse for the level security negligence going on at every phase of rollout.
I gawked at Cursor executing a python script one time and decided enough was enough, I don't raw dog these tools anymore because their developers are the dumbest people to task with security work. They just don't care.
> that it still functions as a general purpose assistant
What features you want it to have? The thing you're saying is super vague, I would just say that one belongs in cloud.
If it must run things on the user's machine, it's gotta be in a rootless container and not be root inside the container. All tools belong in the container. Folder access explicitly configured by the user.
Let's say I have an aligned agent, and I want to give it access to my bank account to track my budget, and my email so it can automate responses to certain messages, and automatically unsubscribe from junk emails.
Nether service has a way to configure fine-grained access for a secondary user.
How do I go about giving the agent the ability to perform these tasks without exposing myself to the risk of unexpected destructive behavior from the agent?
Those are API things. Should be an API, build an MCP server for it. Doesn't touch the PC. About the automated responses, that's a write operation, therefore requires user consent.
If you want to design a system specifically to make sure you're not going to get stonewalled for sending me an emdash, you build and maintain a set of permissive rules for sending/reading to avoid my blacklist of people I'll never work with.
Once you got API stuff sorted, just throw a cronjob at it or build a service for that stuff.
^ There be prompts all over the place here, obviously.
Realistically your MCP server will end up hacking on POP3.
This mentality of "it's to hard" doesn't get things done.
I do agree that some greedy lawyers and civil liability would solve this, but that's not a long term solution at all.
reply