Gerardo1

> Because Europeans don't take smart risks. Because they over regulate.

If you said you can look at the state of VC funding in the US and call it anything approximating "smart risks" I don't know that I'd believe you.

There's no way to know who's funding it (but being at least state subsidized is highly likely), and you we don't really know how much it cost (but in any case it's still less than OpenAI is spending).

On the other hand I'm aware of no credible accusations of deepseek fudging benchmarks whereas OpenAI has had multiple instances of independent parties not being able to replicate their claimed performances on benchmarks (and not being honest and transparent about their benchmarking).

> More capable AI systems make the world better.

Support that.

Now support it while including direct costs and externalities.

> That's simply not true, it's not just "max thinking budget o3"

> The specifics are unknown, but they might...

Hold up.

> but some assume that they do it this way.

Come on now.

That assumes that they've been similarly situated with an offering that isn't profitable and has no path to profitability.

What company selling a primarily AI-based service right now is making a profit on that service?

All very fair caveats/heads up about Ed Zitron, but just for context for others: he is an actual journalist that has been in the tech space for a long time, and has been critical of lots of large figures in tech for a long time. He has a cohesive thesis around the tech industry, so his thoughts on AI/LLMs aren't out of nowhere and disconnected.

Basically, it's one of those things you may read and find that, all things considered, you don't agree with the conclusions, but there's real substance there and you'll probably benefit from reading a few of his articles.

> You think AWS are going to subsidies your usage of somebody else’s models

Yes

>indefinitely?

No, and that's the point.

> when a discord server adopts some LGBTQ propaganda.

There it is.

> It is also additional value creation.

Give some concrete examples and stats?

> It also leads to automation and efficiency, even if it isn’t a fully linear path.

Ditto.

then you lose a large amount of functionality and value. That's the point they were making.

> In almost every company the usage of AI is becoming more and more valuable.

It's certainly becoming more common, and there are lots of people who want it to be valuable, and indeed believe it's valuable.

Personally, I find it about as valuable as a really, really good intellisense. Which is certainly valuable, but I feel like that's way off from the type/quality/quantity of value you're suggesting.

> who doesn't want that to be real.

I think that's exactly the point the person you're responding to is calling out. That's a massive bias.

Only if you don't examine that proposition at all.

You still have to review AI generated code, and with a higher level of attention than you do most code reviews for your peer developers. That requires someone who understands programming, software design, etc.

You still have to test the code. Even if AI generates perfect code, you still need some kind of QA shop.

Basically you're paying for the same people to do similar work to what they do now, but now you also paying for an enterprise license to your LLM provider of choice.

That were written by people. Non-human characters in stories still exist to illustrate something about people.

I don't think that's a useful lens to view the problem through, or a useful way to have a conversation about MCP security.

That a system is hard to secure doesn't negate the need for it to be secure.

Though I agree about third-party MCP services. They're in a weird spot and I'm not sure that they're viable for many use cases.

> considering their saftey risks

The safety risks are marginal and you interact with plenty of other things/systems daily that are at least as dangerous.

> here are safer battery chemestries that aren't quite as energy-dense ^ that's the answer.

> But phones and laptops were capable-enough 15 years ago They absolutely weren't.

> we sufficed just fine on the performance of last-decade's mobile devices. I don't want to suffice.

All that said, I do think battery research is probably one of the most important things "we" can be doing (and energy storage in general), so I'm all about putting in the money and time to find improvements.

If your agent materially misrepresents something, do you think you have any liability there?

* You aren't clear about the goal. The middle of your screen says "Redefining Document Signing" in smaller font but in a blue pill. Immediately under that in large font it says "Turn PDFs toContract Templates in seconds". Which is it? Those are not the same thing.

* Then there's "5x faster document workflows — AI that auto-fills, explains, and builds reusable templates in seconds." Which is yet another thing that is discreet from the above.

* If you're going to have features based on AI, you need to be very clear and very loud about how and to what extent your any AI feature has access to my data. I need a super-charged privacy policy there, and I want you to be terrified of the consequences of violating your promises.

* "Get Up and Running Within A Week" That's forever to sign a document, which I think is the central purpose of this service?

* Your comparison slider between the traditional process and yours is comparing two very different things: what looks like a government form and an email. I can't take anything away from that.

* At the top of the page there's a "give us your email for early access" box, but at the bottom there's a whole form. What do I get from one that I don't get from the other?

Basically, your site isn't clear about the focus of this service. I would guess the template things are the primary use-case you're interested in. And in general the landing page doesn't inspire confidence. Tell me about security. Tell me that you take having and working with my data seriously.

I read this as you suggesting that signal is somehow at fault here?

If I'm getting that wrong, ignore me, if I'm not, could you expand that? I don't follow how signal did anything wrong here, or was in any way responsible.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

No one cared. One of the better things a president has done for the country in quite a while, and no one cared, and no one remembers.

If the capacity existed to build residential properties at that scale (much less at a price that wasn't absurd), there wouldn't be a need for this bill.

There are at least several thousand years between the last non-modern human hominids dying out and the first writing emerging.

Ah gotcha, thanks!

I do feel you have a bit of an ethical obligation to also have a "how to avoid leaking this information" section in your README.

Why would you want that?

I would, in general, prefer that incorrect information about me was shared with spammers, if any information is shared. Ditto for most third parties that I don't have a direct relationship with or ongoing conversation. And even then, usually the information they need about me is pretty limited.

Yep, it's really transparent and I really hate how so many communities and platforms turn a blind eye to it.

It's not a productive comment, it doesn't invite discussion, it doesn't add useful information.

> Most of those people are silent quitting or refusing to go back to work.

Come on, you know you can't just throw that out. Support your claim.

Yep. MCP is a project run by Anthropic (https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol) that "enables seamless integration between LLM applications and external data sources and tools."

They host a repo with lots of what they call "reference" implementations, including this one for postgres which naively takes a query from a request and shoves it at your database with no validation, escaping, anything: https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/servers/blob/7d6cdb6...

There's an issue calling this out, and it's been labeled a bug, but still.

When you go to their documentation, the only example of actually building a server is this section where they just...use an LLM to build it. Here's their prompt:

> Build an MCP server that: - Connects to my company's PostgreSQL database - Exposes table schemas as resources - Provides tools for running read-only SQL queries - Includes prompts for common data analysis tasks

So, I think there's a fairly high chance that all of the "reference implementations" they're hosting are AI generated with basically no security considerations or code reviews made.

Is there any indication that the owners of those crawlers intend for them to play nice?

I think this form the article is telling:

> The Register asked Schubert about this in early January. "Funnily enough, a few days after the post went viral, all crawling stopped," he responded at the time. "Not just on the Diaspora wiki, but on my entire infrastructure. I'm not entirely sure why, but here we are."

So the owners of those crawlers certainly have the ability to stop the traffic, they're just choosing not too...until publicity makes their actions risky.

But are you donating to an organization to plant trees?

What has the lower barrier of entry: making a point to donate your money, or switching your default search engine?