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. mschuster91 · 1790612702 · focus · HN ↗

         Oh you absolutely can run them autonomously on the field. You only need a human these days to refuel them.

         Precision Agriculture stuff is utterly crazy these days, other than fuel the remaining staff is the only thing left where you can get efficiency improvements - and at the scale of modern megafarms, even small percentages add up to a ton of money.

         1. drfloyd51 · 1790630809 · focus · HN ↗

            Right. As they said, you can’t do it 100% autonomously. A human needs to feed it.

            You essentially said: you’re wrong, it is autonomous when it doesn’t need a human during one specific part of its overall usage.

            1. mschuster91 · 1790671694 · focus · HN ↗

               > You essentially said: you’re wrong, it is autonomous when it doesn’t need a human during one specific part of its overall usage.

               During the time that actually matters economically. The time to drive the harvester to/from your typical US mega-field is minuscule compared to the time it can run all on its own.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.