qarl2

Like I said below, I think this is a fantastic result. It discovered that this question really wasn't asking the right question. That's a determination that has eluded the humans examining the problem - and a real step forward - albeit not the hoped-for step.

No?

And discovering a bad question leads to the correct question. No?

Why is that a "however"? My reading is that it found a genuinely new solution that is both elegant and previously missed.

Seems like exactly the kind of result a human mathematician would aspire to.

https://www.opb.org/article/2026/07/07/oregon-data-center-ge...

Regardless, I'm just happy to have these things at my disposal now. I don't need to be the one writing the code.

I don't need to make the wings to enjoy flying.

Since the advent of AI I have been delighted by the number of old project ideas I've been able to execute. There are just too many ideas to implement them all by yourself - but AIs don't seem to mind in the least.

It's a brave new world.

Don't look at the simple probability - look at probability * value.

Stop stalking me. It's creepy as fuck. Be better.

I can.

But to answer your question directly - I suspect they simply don't care, and just take the easiest way.

Making the behavior for "I disagree" and "this is erroneous" the same seems like a problematic design.

On the contrary - I think the most reasonable interpretation of his words is that he did use it via emailing it. But like I said at the beginning, I could be wrong. It will be interesting to see what he says when he returns to the conversation.

> Once again, I reiterate, an agent processing email that rejects every single one passes the test that the OP created, but then it can't do anything useful either.

No one is contesting that point, only that it is applicable.

> Author here. It was usable like any Openclaw agent. For example, I used it to ask it questions about the VPS, to summarize emails, etc.

It did not reject everything, it just stopped the costly processing.

> Is unwarranted.

Is this not a complaint?

But after a bit the cost grew so high that he just checked whether the attacks would have worked, without doing the costly response.

I could be wrong, of course, but it seems like the most likely interpretation of his words and why wouldn't be subject to your complaint.

(FULL DISCLOSURE - I used AI to fix some bad wording in my original version.)

My experience does not match yours.

And it's not just sometimes - it's most people.

So. They have their option too. And it's at the top, where most people can find it.

Understand that 99% are comfortable trusting downloads. They know that it's just as easy to sneak backdoors into source code as it is to sneak backdoors into executables.

See also: XZ hack.

I know ChatGPT seems like it's non-deterministic - but that just a user preference.

The only real issue is if you have many people on the same server, the GPU contention can be non-deterministic in rare cases.

LLMs can be deterministic if you need them to be - it's just that most people prefer the human-like interface.

Because then you can install it without depending on a package manager?