Thread

1. cedws · 1790611744 · focus · HN ↗

   A new chip solves nothing. Nobody wants to hear this but there is no solution for the security risks posed by agents today. You can put it in a sandbox, it doesn't make a difference, for it to be useful it inherently needs wide, unattended access. Put a human in the loop and you just end up bottlenecking it and throwing away any purported productivity gains. Auto mode doesn't matter either, it's trivial to trick and for the agent to break out.

   1. bob1029 · 1790612344 · focus · HN ↗

      I feel like we are missing many shades of grey in the middle.

      Semi-automation (human in the loop) can still result in a dramatic uplift in productivity. You can't run a combine harvester 100% autonomous but that doesn't stop anyone from trying to get as close to that limit as possible.

      1. inetknght · 1790612463 · focus · HN ↗

         > You can't run a combine harvester 100% autonomous

         I'm curious why you think that.

         1. theoreticalmal · 1790612697 · focus · HN ↗

            Probably repair, refuel, what happens in a tornado. There’s an infinite amount of complexity in the world and a finite amount of computation

            1. catchnear4321 · 1790625711 · focus · HN ↗

               Repair is more maintenance than use. Good eventual goal. Not required to see benefits. Best case, it drives itself to the garage. Worst case, for now, human mechanic does a house call.

               Refueling? Seems solvable. Tornadoes? Not directly solvable, but, no less so than for humans.

               There’s infinite complexity, sure, but that’s why it’s silly to try and hop to done. One step at a time.

               1. spauldo · 1790630981 · focus · HN ↗

                  Tornado: return to the barn when you receive emergency weather alerts. Not much different than people.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.