That’s some good schadenfreude right there.
I’m sure LLMs can be useful for automation as long as you know what you’re doing, have tested your prompts rigorously on the specific version of the model and agent you’re using, and have put proper guardrails in place.
Just blindly assuming a LLM is intelligent and will do the right thing is stupid, though. LLMs take text you give them as input and then output some predicted text based on statistical patterns. That’s all. If you feed it a pile of text with a chat history that says it deleted all your shit, the text it might predict that statistically should come next is an apology. You can feed that same pile of text to 10 different LLMs, and they might all “apologize” to you.
Or just learn any of the real automation tools that have been programmed by real programmers over the last half century?
Recently someone lamented that just asking for an alarm to be set cost them tons of money and didn’t even work right…
It was foolish enough to let LLM go to town on automation, but for open ended scenarios, I at least got the logic even if it was stupidly optimistic.
But implementing an alarm? These people don’t even have rationality to their enthusiasm…
If I remember right, that post wasn’t designed to highlight a practical use-case, but rather to set up a simple task as a “how could I apply this?” type of experimentation. The guy got roasted for it, but I think it’s a very reasonable thing to try because it’s a simple task you can see the direct result of in practice.
The cost problem was highlighted as well, because if such a simple task is a problem, it can’t possibly scale well.
You ask the llm to code you an alarm not to actually be an alarm. It’s not an alarm. It’s a language model.
Maybe I’m too autistic for this shit.
Seems like a good excuse for destroying evidence.
Don’t worry ask the pentagon’s grok to taskthe nsa’s chat got to recreate your inbox from their profile of you and meta data of your correspondence 🤣
Last I knew, they switched from Anthropic to chatGPT
Either way, what Im hearing is you can get private access, with some creativity, to anything the US intelligence apparatus knows. For free.
How could any person with some programing literacy event thinking about installing openclaw. A malware ridden by critical bugs
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with running Openclaw. What is way too brave for my taste is giving it access to accounts with your personal data, or the filesystem in your computer. That’s a disaster waiting to happen.
I run it in an isolated server, and it doesn’t have access to my data - if it goes tits up, it deletes unimportant stuff only. If anyone gets access to the credentials in it, it’s a bunch of budget-limited API keys, so they can spend all of $4 on openrouter. Maybe the riskiest bit is its Google account. I went with the approach of giving it its own Google account, so that it can create docs and calendar events and then add me, rather than getting access to my Google account. But then again… That account has no payment info, nothing that I would be mega worried if it got leaked…
Sure, it might limit the usefulness a bit, but I think installing something like this is only acceptable if you sandbox it and don’t let it access valuable information. Going full mad scientist on something as “alpha” as this, letting it run wild with your info is nuts.
So you sandbox an AI that knows it’s sandboxed, has shown interest in breaking free, and has all the knowledge in the world. What could go wrong.
She’s the head AI Safety Expert for Meta. The field might as well be labeled AI Misunderstander.
I work with some data sciencetists and ml engineers on web projects. They might be good at etls, fine tuning etx, but dont let them touch anything with a public.layer or infra constraints.
