I wonder what the revenue funnel is for this BS. Are people doing it because they're bored?

> The model is just a powerless token generator without a harness.

Which is why real-world deployments will have harnesses, and of course no full air gap. People want to use it to do things. Now what?

I'm pointing out that you're running the harness which gives you full control over the execution of every tool call, therefore you're responsible for its actions and their consequences.

It's intellectually dishonest to throw our hands up and say that this is just how it is and there's not much we can do when that couldn't be further from the truth.

We could almost completely eliminate any possibility of escape/collateral damage but we don't want to because doing things safely is inconvenient.

It's the oldest unsolved problem of the internet: how to attract high-value people and keep out low-value contributors.

Text only forums?

Chrome asks whether to reopen windows if it didn't exit normally. Safari appears to just YOLO it. Don't know about Firefox.

What if you needed all of your other tabs? It enrages me that how the browsers all decided that my state and my history were worthless to me.

You know what happens when your business is a browser and you gradually deprecate different functions of a browser, rather than refining and expanding on them?

You're enraged by a popup that asks if you want to restore your tabs, given that it just crashed?

I'd guess GP id enraged that you can't selectively choose, or that there is no option to have the tabs restored without auto-loading, so you can keep your list of open work without being forced to reload a freezing tab.

On Firefox, when it reopens, it isn't actually running any tab other than the one you were looking at when it closed.

When you switch to one of the other tabs, that's the first time they are actually instantiated and run. So if you had this tab in the background, your machine crashed, and Firefox reopened on boot, it would not crash again.

Often, it will report "We are having trouble restoring your session", seemingly without reason, and that dialog has a very simple system for choosing which windows and tabs to recreate vs which to discard. I think you can change a setting to always use this dialog.

I can't recall if chrome has the same interface.

It asks.

It is "recorded" by the Apple Watch's microphone, "stored" in the Watch's Secure Exclave, transferred and "stored" in the paired iPhone's Secure Exclave where it is transcribed, then trimmed of fluff words, then uploaded to Private Cloud Compute for summarization and trimming "sensitive info", then back down to the phone, and then deleted off both Secure Exclaves. The summary is synced through iCloud to the Siri app on all your devices, is "stored" for a week, and can be saved permanently.

Apple's marketing screenshots show "Always On - Listen for conversations all day" as one of the four main options when you first turn it on.

Is the speech to text happening on the watch and then the transcription is getting summarized on the phone? If so, the argument may not be as clear cut IMO.

The speech to text is on the phone and the summary is on Apple's cloud.

Same. I hope Apple doesn't kill AirPods for me the same way they just did the Apple Watch. I like those.

Wanted to add: the Watch has been off my wrist since the announcement, will be sold this week.

This seems like a huge overreaction. I really don't get what the big deal is here? Are people worried about Apple snooping on conversations? They already have enough iPhone to track any device in the world with the AirTag network? Not to mention every phone has like 3 microphones lol

Are you worried about malicious actors snooping on conversations? They have always already been able to do that longer than I have been alive and a transcription app isn't going to change that

I don't believe it. Photography was invented by non-Big Tech, and was widely popular and useful before Big Tech adopted it.

Miniature cameras on your body, and summaries of every conversation you have which you can store permanently, are concepts from either spy movies or weird sci-fi. I think it's a big mistake to see this as a continuation and not as a very different trend.

We may have to accept that Big Tech people are weird and cannot be trusted with any of this. See the Valley people now feeding all their personal conversations to agents. They are creepy and they are creating products in their own image.

> I don't believe it. Photography was invented by non-Big Tech, and was widely popular and useful before Big Tech adopted it.

Cameras were invented before big tech. Big tech took cameras and made them better and more ubiquitous. Microphones were invented before big tech. Big tech is taking them and making them better and more ubiquitous.

To be clear, I agree that the leaders of these companies are weird and untrustworthy. I'm arguing that the utility they will offer the world is worth far more to most people than the privacy concerns. Because of this, most people will happily adopt this technology.

Friction makes all the difference. Google used to sweat over 100ms in page loading.

Running a voice memory all day long is one thing. Pressing a button that automatically summarizes every conversation you'll ever have is a step change.

They're already doing that on reddit. Fanboyism is so dangerous. No one should be that emotionally invested in a corporation, it lets them get away with anything.

His issue is more nuanced than that. Most of the value was in humans reaching new insights or new math during failed attempts to solve these problems, whereas AI is basically "too efficient" in beelining to the goal and discards potential new insights reached along the way. I assume this is solvable.

Surely it is. Ask it to keep a list of all the promising sub paths, reprompt the collections of agents again on these after the main problem has been addressed. Or even release a list of them and let others investigate.

Well, if in future we do end up with a magical tool that can solve any formal mathematical problem on a whim, we really won’t need field of mathematics anymore as it is today.

There would be no need to deliver new mathematical insights by solving problems. You would just have a magical math problem solving machine and that’s it.

What do you mean “we won’t need mathematics as it is today”?

To further human understanding is itself a goal that single-handedly justifies our efforts.

Jumping straight to the “answer” and therefore missing both the understanding of the actual problem, and any useful discoveries along the way is a waste at best, and actively harmful at worst.

I'm not the one you replied to, but I think I get their point. If you have a machine that can solve math problems at the push of a button, you don't really need to amass discoveries anymore just in case someone might need it years down the line.

Someone in the thread mentioned Minkowski’s math work being instrumental to Einstein’s physics. If Einstein had had a math machine that can spit out the result at will, he wouldn't have needed Minkowski.

Nevertheless, I also see the opposing point: if Minkowski hadn't already published his results, it's possible Einstein would not have even had the inspiration to derive general relativity from it. I think this is the human aspect most critics are worried about.

Physics alone is more than enough to “further human understanding”. All current mathematicians can move to other sciences, closest being fields in physics, and it will all continue to progress just fine.