For the best experience on desktop, install the Chrome extension to track your reading on news.ycombinator.com
Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | history | more taurath's commentsregister

TBH I think the only way we solve this is through a pre-input layer that isn't an LLM as we know it today. Think how we use parameterized SQL queries - we need some way for the pathway be defined pre-input, like some sort of separation of data & commands.


I believe the dollars strength is built on its unassailability as the petrodollar and foreign reserve currency, which lets the fed set interest rates and print money while creating less inflation than any other currency. The world looks very very different when energy markets aren’t fulfilled in dollars in ways that most citizens won’t understand.


That’s false. The petrodollar is irrelevant because two non-US companies trading using an intermediate currency like the USD create a balanced buy and sell of the intermediary.


If the petrodollar is irrelevant, why is Iran insisting that anything transiting the straight of Hormuz be bought using the Chinese Yen?


Because China has a controlled currency and can lock flows back out.

Please do enough research to at least get the right currency before engaging in these discussions.

The forex markets are so extremely liquid and deep that trading in USD is no different than trading in any other free floating high volume currency.

Petrodollar might have mattered in 1975 when you couldn’t swap 100 million USD for 100 million euros in 2 seconds without even moving the market.


Yuan. Not Yen. Iran shouldn’t be insisting anything.


But why is Iran insisting the Chinese Yuan be used? Because they're idiots?

Because Petrodollars make our global economy work, and Iran wants their partner China to be in control! If Americans lose sight of their need to maintain their role as *THE* lingua franca of international trade, then all hell is lost. The US cannot afford its military without massive consequences if it can't raise extraordinarily cheap debt through purchases of oil in US dollars immediately turned around to buy US debt to maintain that money's value.


“The aristocrats!”


“Made at home” means time. I cook 3 meals a day in my house and it’s a significant dent in other things I could be doing. The more stress I take on from work, the less effortful food I make. I have taken years in my adult life to get good enough to “throw something together” that is healthy and is something I enjoy eating and would choose over a burger. I still eat a lot of burgers.

Personal responsibility sure but that often comes with utter ignorance of the systems that people find themselves in, especially poverty and mental health. The bottom 50% own nothing, have no security, and everything that makes their lives a little easier are things they’ll consider.


You don't need to cook 3 meals a day, eating 2 or 1 meal a day is perfectly doable. And cooking once and eating it over 2-3 days is perfectly doable.

Or you can just eat bread with 1-2 topics of choice. Perfectly viable and fine for a long work day. Its only a problem if you eat to much.

> and everything that makes their lives a little easier are things they’ll consider.

Consider it, but don't cry about cost when you door dash 5 times a week. This is actually pretty common. People Door Dash, pay with Klarna and then pay Klarna with Credit cards.


Great. So stop saying it's cheaper. It's more convenient, sure. Takes effort, yep.

I was obese most of my adult life. It absolutely cost me more to eat cheap (as in nutrition) shitty fast foods than prepare things from base ingredients. It was more convenient and it was the easy path for sure, but absolutely in no way a means to save money. It costs vastly more. I could only afford to get fat once I started making money. Growing up we were too poor to eat that horribly.


Your story is your story and nobody can say it isn't, but it reads strange to me to comment about cost when the crux of my statement was about the relative time and effort to cook rather than cost.

But since you'd like to speak about price it seems, I'd posit that for a good long while there, dollar menu items were genuinely about as cheap as you could get for food - $4 on the way home from work and get an hour of time back to unwind? It was worth it to me - heck, a lot of the time I used that time to be in the gym.

I'll grant you that pretty much any restaurant you'd sit down in where you don't pay at the counter is utterly more expensive - 3x the ingredient cost at least.

But we're not comparing steaks and chicken entrees here, we're comparing rice & beans and chicken breast vs a McDouble or $5 footlong. Weeknight roasts that you have to plan ahead for, Sunday meal prep days. Its all time - I recognize this because I choose to take that time on, and its time that I don't get to spend on other stuff.


I love how despite all this, the author still uses the language:

> We’re simply not there yet to let the agents run loose

As if there aren’t fundamental properties that would need to change to ever become secure.


Personally, if I could run capable-enough inference on hardware I control, and could rely on the harness asking me for mechanistic confirmation before the agent can take consequential actions, I'd do it immediately.


Consequential actions like searching the web or downloading packages or dependencies or doing most anything useful?


No, these are all fine for me (my agent is sandboxed in a container, so it can install all the node modules or Debian packages it wants).

I was thinking more of sending outgoing emails, publishing anything on the web, spending my money etc.


Too many people making too much money - to be honest, people really should blame tech for it, all it takes is RSUs to look the other way. Morally most of the US is running far away from tech and the surveillance state but here it’s still okay to work for monsters and self justify building population control systems and ad networks (often one and the same)


The solution is always to constrain every level of government with more aggressive privacy laws. As long as they are allowed to do it then some private contractors will take the money to help make it ... or government will make their own in house tech teams. Relying on the morals of the general public to limit state surveillance is not a good strategy, but it is of course good when companies take a stand and the tech community creates tools to push back.


It should be prohibited outright. If you allow a loophole for corporations then they will just sell it as a service and we will never be free of it.


Companies create the environment - the government is supposed to be “small” - and it must remain small so the US “consumer” can be leeched from


The US government is very far from small. That said, I'd be open to rules on the data broker industry though considering it's scale and how the foreign governments can buy/hack them bypassing all of Tiktok-esque national security handwaving.


> Tiktok-esque national security handwaving.

Algorithmic feeds are propaganda tools. A foreign government being able to propagandize your citizens is a legitimate threat, not handwaving.


Think for a nanosecond about how exploitable that is. Imagine for a moment that a foreign nation had obtained proof that say ICE was engaged in sex trafficking and publishing it only for it to be blocked as 'destabilizing propaganda'.

If anybody says that propaganda is a valid reason for censorship I say, censor thyself first.


No one said anything about censorship. There are many things that would pose a threat if controlled by a foreign adversary. Communications platforms with algorithmic feeds are one of them.


"morals of the general public" helps lead to "more aggressive privacy laws"


By RSU, I'm assuming you mean this:

> Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are a form of equity compensation where employers promise company shares, typically vesting over time, offering a way to align employee interests with company performance


Yes - you buy the house in the bay, and companies will lock you in with the vesting schedule. Just another 3, 4 years and you’ll be rich enough to afford a second one, or retire early. Some people can self justify what they do, or pretend because they work in a “nicer” part of a company than the core revenue part that it’s all okay that what pays their checks is mass behavior manipulation. I don’t like ads or social coercion, at all.


Over time we stop engaging as there is less and less actual information and more and more attention engineering at play. Then someone will make a space with real information again and we’ll all move there.


Atlassian Rovo is considered utterly dangerous on my team (as we are still encouraged to use it…), the first time I did it erased a whole page - it couldn’t get the most basic instruction correct, would leave out 80% of what I input, respond to corrections with the same problem. It’s just a liability.


Rovo dev cli is pretty good though. Though that may just be because it talks to claude or openai in the backend.


I used it for a while a year or so ago when it was in beta and gave 20M free tokens daily


Rovo is backed by the typical LLM providers in general, Atlassian isn't training its own models.


Cue 3 months to the “I’m having to make some hard decisions” email. Whats the board at Bluesky like?


When faced with the choice of trusting a stranger, you turned it down, then made the decision about the lack of trust in the world?

Trust in strangers has never been easy in the US. If something is to change, it has to start individually.


This falls into the domain of the ethics of care. Sure change needs to start some place, but it doesn't need to be done recklessly. Nobody does anybody any favours by putting themselves in dangerous situations. To care for other people, to give them the attention they need you need to prepare yourself for it first.


Just making the point it’s a bit like someone in traffic complaining about all the other ppl on the road! :)


I believe you are understanding the opposite of what was said.

I understood it as "there cannot be trust anymore" - mostly because different people are at risk of becoming a victim in different ways: from a crime itself, or from being falsely accused of committing a crime.

Individuals will act in a way that makes sense for them. Asking them to "just trust more" does not solve the problem - it needs to be addressed at the root (education, communities), which goes far beyond the individual level.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search:

HN For You