I've lost count of how many times I've clicked into a bio from a flagged, obviously LLM written comment to find some variation of "Building new AI tools for agentic devops"...
603 karma · joined June 22, 2026
I've lost count of how many times I've clicked into a bio from a flagged, obviously LLM written comment to find some variation of "Building new AI tools for agentic devops"...
It doesn't even link out to the Linkedin post from the screenshot as far as I can tell.
https://github.com/raphire/win11debloat
I use agentic tools myself but I really don't understand why some people seem to enjoy the idea of spending their money/quota/extra time just to redo something that already exists as an open source project...
They appreciate this sort of political nihilism where everyone seems to have collective amnesia about the current status quo vs. just a couple years ago and so lament "nothing ever changes, voting is pointless".
At the time the story blew up on HN drawing lots of outrage from the self-styled free speech maximalists. Now, of course, there's comparative silence from that crowd after regular stories about the FCC routinely weaponizing licenses to enforce preferred speech, lawsuit threats against Wikipedia, coercion of universities to suppress specific political views, etc. But at the time it was a big thing and a political gift to the Trump admin's public image.
Also .15% of the time the door just randomly opens or stays shut with no rhyme or reason. Bug previously filed with cloud door vendor but told it's within door SLA and sent previously signed copy of agreement that "all neural nets are a black box and inherently probabilistic so errors may occur at any time and not a product defect"
Automatic doors (as used in the real world) are pretty much always located in areas intended for actively moving foot traffic (not as interior doors for every room). So this feels like adding a lot of complexity and unwelcome probabilistic behavior to something that in most locations does the right thing 99% of the time already.
Say someone was building Murderbot™ in their backyard by training on simulated murder of dummies with a machine gun. Everything was going fine for weeks as kill rates steadily improved with each test. Then one day he left the gate on his picket fence open, so Murderbot™ walked out to the public sidewalk and promptly murdered someone.
He wouldn't be exonerated by saying "But my Murder™ algorithm was only intended to be used on dummies! I never imagined it could do something as vile as murdering a human being!" Because it was reckless to knowingly design an algorithm for killing human-shaped things using a robot armed with live ammo right next to a public road. On top of the gross negligence by starting a test while leaving the gate on the (already flimsy) fence wide open.
OpenAI knowingly decided to train for an exploit benchmark to improve the model's offensive capabilities, with full awareness it could be potentially dangerous if misdirected, and then failed at implementing even the most minimal security measures. It may not have been intentional but was reckless. It's a much different scenario than say, a user vibecoding a to-do app whose agent veered off to break into an FTP server to get a missing asset.
If SpaceX failed to deliver a working product after a receiving a bunch of incremental payments for the pre-delivery milestones (deliberately structured to prop up their early R&D), it might have ended up front and center as an example of government "picking winners and losers" gone wrong like how Solyndra was featured at the 2012 RNC.
What's missing in your claim is evidence that people in academia often mischaracterize this style of discussion from accumulated knowledge and shared context as "thinking from first principles". I don't see any plausible rationale for why they would.
Otherwise, using their typical mode of interaction from outside observations to infer they misunderstand first principles is not a standard anyone doing specialized work inside or outside academia would ever be able to meet.
The private sector would grind to a halt if discussing a specific IEEE 802.11 protocol implementation with a fellow SME required a lengthy preamble of networking first principles before answering in order to be epistemologically sound.
Similarly, using a conversation overheard at a conference to infer the experts lack first principles thinking would not be reasonable just because they appealed to IEEE documents instead of rearticulating the underlying decisions made by the standards committee.
US automobile safety ratings/improvements over time are largely driven by IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety). It's a private group but is the standard yardstick manufacturers expect to be tested against and fills in a lot of gaps in NHTSA official crash tests.
It wouldn't be strange to see IIIS plus NHTSA criteria used colloquially to describe "US crash standards" when talking about cars even if not fully defined by regulation.
"UL Listed" products or the International Building Code (the base model broadly followed with modifications by each state) are also "national standards" but not set by regulation.
This is also a far cry from what Musk was saying last year. In January 2025, he said Tesla would build about 10,000 Optimus robots in 2025 and that “several thousand” would be doing useful work by year-end. A year later, he admitted that zero Optimus robots were doing useful work at Tesla. He also promised a V3 reveal by mid-2026. It’s late September, and that demo still hasn’t happened.Incumbent Presidents in the US almost always run for reelection to a second term, that's the normal expected outcome with vanishingly few exceptions in the last century.
And it makes me feel like a bitter curmudgeon seeing so many people act like it's real and the few people who point out the obvious ad/lying description/AI slop/scripted skit/deceptive editing/etc getting dogpiled for being a cynical Debbie Downer who should shut up and let people enjoy things.
Personally, it doesn't make me feel good to be baited and manipulated for my scarce attention. If anything I find it especially offensive to hijack happiness neurons in my brain for an ulterior motive... that does not make me happy. But increasingly it's looking like I'm in the minority and out of touch with the zeitgeist.
All I want is a clear, technically flawless, even/restrained "computer voice" for pretty much every use case (except audiobooks). But that doesn't make for splashy demos/score well for RLHF raters.
Who, you may ask, would take that money? People like business influencer Megan Lieu, who chose not to disclose just how much she'd made from her AI deals, but says her biggest sponsorship to date has been with Anthropic (makers of Claude), as well as that her biggest sponsored contracts (for any client) are normally around the $30,000 mark.
(from the third link)https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/06/google-microsoft-pay-creator...
https://www.reddit.com/r/NYCinfluencersnark/comments/1sn3t9k...
https://aftermath.site/ai-influencer-creator-deals-sponsorsh...
Our lab, located in the Bay Area, looks like a typical molecular biology lab. We do research that involves only the lower-levels of the biosafety risk level (BSL-1 and BSL-2) and we do not handle pathogens that can infect humans. All of the lab work is performed by human scientists. Although we’ve experimented with using AI to accelerate lab work with initiatives like the Model Hardware Standard, this approach is less conducive to the sort of ad hoc workflows that are involved in our molecular biology research.It's totally legitimate research worthy of publication, but Anthropic chose a hot technology in the popular imagination for a reason. Now I'm going to have to see "Claude invented a new CRISPR in 24 hours!" everywhere and trying to correct it will just turn into repetitive arguments about goalposts moving....
Including app stores installed out of the box on GMS certified devices like the Samsung Galaxy Store (alongside the Play Store).
It just means they will be easier to install via the Play Store without sideloading (making other commercial stores more attractive but not really my cup of tea), and some minor API changes (although auto updating was added even before the ruling so not sure what else there might be).
Personally I'm not concerned about the changes to sideloading since it's a one time mild inconvenience. So I struggle to understand how going to iOS in protest (which doesn't allow persistent sideloading at all without workarounds) makes any sense whatsoever.
Google's original plan would have been really bad, but the new approach is a complete non-issue for me.
e.g.
https://ubidots.com/blog/content/images/2024/10/siemens-sima...
Of course, perilous territory for future irony depending on how your prediction plays out.
https://www.reddit.com/r/accelerate/comments/1qu61kp/eliezer...