You could view various non-proliferation agreements as a legislative constraint on military technology.
Same for chemical and biologicals. Those do prove your point that the law will be ignored if expedient. But it doesn't invalidate the notion of a society putting constraints on itself.
When someone says something that I think is poorly framed, I often reframe it and speak to that instead. (Lots of people do this, even if they don’t realize it. I’m aware that I do, for better and worse, and I still prefer it; I think it is more authentic. I think some of the best ways we can enrich other people’s lives is by sharing different ways of processing the world. Lots of people get locked into pretty uninteresting narratives.)
So reframe I did. (I don’t think those articles you cited are worth any more attention than I’ve already given them.)
My most blunt editorializing would be this: most people would be better grounded if they read AI alignment and safety books by Stuart Russell, Nick Bostrom, Brian Christian, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and Nate Soares. If you’ve read others that you recommend, please let me know. I’ve read many that I don’t usually recommend.
As far as long form articles, I recommend Paul Christiano, Zvi Moshowitz, as well as anyone with the fortitude to make predictions while sharing their models (like the AI 2027 crew).
I recommend browsing “Best of Year Y” (or whatever they are called) articles on the AI Alignment Forum and LessWrong.
They are my go-tos for smart & informed writing on AI. For posts that have more than say 100 votes, the quality bar is tremendously higher than almost anywhere else I’ve seen, including mainstream sources with great reputations.
In conclusion, I would rather point to interesting people to read and places to engage.
It's an idyllic dream, as long as you don't need to make money!
No one who touches beans makes money. Only the largest multinational traders and cafes. The money from the specialty coffee chain goes to landlords, shipping companies, and equipment manufacturers.
Of course you'll need to live in the tropics too.
For learning about coffee production, the podcast "Making Coffees" by Lucia Solis is excellent (and industry award winning).
Can you help me understand which of these happened?
1) Open Claw has a Google OAuth client id that users are signing in with. (This seems unlikely because why would Google have approved the client or not banned it)
2) Users are creating their own OAuth client id for signing themselves into Open Claw. (Again, why would these clients be able to use APIs Google doesn't want them to?)
3) Users are taking a token minted with the Antigravity client and using it in Open Claw to call "private" APIs.
Assuming it's #3, how is that physically accomplished? And then how does Google figure out it happened?
"how does Google figure out it happened" - no insider knowledge, but the calls Claw makes are very different than the regular IDE, so the calls and volume alone would be an indicator. Maybe Google has even updated their Antigravity IDEs to just include some other User Agent, that Claw auth does not have.
Everything just guesswork, but I don't think it is too hard to figure out whether it is Antigravity calling the APIs or any Claw.
I don't understand step 1. OAuth client applications have to be registered in GCP, right? They have to request specific scopes for specific APIs, and there is a review process before they can be used by the public. Did none of that happen for the Open Claw client? How is it the users' fault for clicking a "Sign in with Google" button? And if there was a mistake, why not ban the whole client?
I could see a problem with logging into Antigravity then exfiltrating the tokens to use somewhere else... But that doesn't sound like what happened. (And then how would they know?)
I haven't used Open Claw, so what else am missing to make this make sense?
To my understanding, OpenClaw pretends to be Antigravity by using the Antigravity OAuth client ID (and doesn't have its own), and then the takes the token Google returns to instead use with OpenClaw.
When I first tried OpenClaw and chose Google Sign-In, I noticed the window appeared saying "Sign into Google Antigravity" with a Google official mark, and a warning it shouldn't be used to sign into anything besides official Google apps. I closed it immediately and uninstalled OpenClaw as this was suspicious to me, and it was a relatively new project then.
It amazes me that the maintainer(s) allowed something like this...
If this is like the flow it uses for a codex / ChatGPT subscription it doesn’t even register a handler - the redirect opens as a 404 in your browser and there are instructions in copying the token from the query string!
Antigravity runs on your machine, the secret is there for the taking.
This is true of all OAuth client logins in this way, it's why the secret doesn't mean the same thing as it does with server to server login, you can never fully trust the client.
OAuth impersonation is nothing new, it's a well known attack vector that can't really be worked around (without changing the UX), the solution is instead terms of service, policies, and enforcement.
>>it amazes me that the maintainer(s) allowed something like this...
Really? In today's landscape this is the part that surprises you? I'm seeing these types of decisions repeatedly and typically my only question is do they not know any better, or intentionally not care?
IMO the plot of Apple's "The Foundation" is an infuriating insult to the original series. However, the production is great and Lee Pace is awesome as usual.
I think it's best appreciated as an original space opera that just happens to have the same name, especially given that so much of the show is genuinely original.
I generally agree, and also that it's impossible to take a book to video without change. I tend to try to think of it like this, imagine Bob and Jim watched a battle scene, but one from the west, the other from the east side. Bob wrote the book, Jim the movie.
Naturally, although it was the same battle, they'll have seen different things up close, and have different views on the battle overall.
Having said that...
It's like someone wrote the Foundation movie three generations after the book was written, turned into a play, and then told over the campfire for decades.
It literally has no more connection with Asimov's works, than Star Wars is like Star Trek. All of the technology is different, the size of the Empire is wildly different, literally almost nothing maps.
Is it good? Yes, sorta. But it's not Foundation, by any stretch. It's not even remotely in the same "world".
My problem is that the show essentially "says" the opposite of the novels.
For compelling TV you need recurring characters for the audience to become invested in. But the whole point of Foundation was that the individuals don't matter (mostly).
The show had to jump through all these hoops to keep the same actors around and make them heroes. And it expanded/emphasized the metaphysical element in a way that undermined the psychohistory. And IMO makes/will make (honestly don't know where they're at now) the series ending reveal far less interesting and thought provoking.
reply