Thanks for the info. Shouldn't the repositories only allow to merge reviewed code though? Which can also be bypassed, but then you need two compromised accounts instead of one.

I am trying to have a candid and polite discussion here. I asked a question, you didn't answer it, you insulted me and complained that I didn't answer your question. I don't understand the need to antagonise. I don't appreciate the double standard (you expecting me to answer your question while refusing to answer mine). Get angry all you want, but without me. Good job convincing nobody and making people want to disagree with you.

To be clear, I an not discussing legality but morality. Legality can change from one place to another, but we can still hope to reach an agreement on morality.

The claim I was responding to is that the person who put the prompt in and the warning in the release notes was "intentionally destroying somebody's data". I disagree with that claim and I use a relatable analogy of a simpler situation.

I believe my analogy is good, do you agree? If not, why not? If yes, in the analogy, did I throw a water balloon on your head?

Sure, but nobody did that here.

If I put a big red button and a sign that says "do not press the red button, it is not meant to be pressed", and you press the red button anyway, and that releases a water balloon that falls on your head, did I throw a water balloon on your head?

I agree that it's a dick move. I also don't think it should be illegal. Wishing financial ruin through litigation is also a bit of a dick move by the way. The guy is taking a stance and mentioning it in the release notes.

Regardless of intention, this is raising awareness, and the only way this causes more than a mild inconvenience is if you have zero backup and zero version control. Now imagine if, instead, the instructions had been about stealing private data. People should be aware that this kind of vulnerability exists and is essentially impossible to defend against if you give that kind of access to your agent.

It's one way to look at it. Another is that the person responsible for the damage being done is the person giving the LLM access to do said damage. The LLM is unpredictable. It's like letting a dog loose in a kindergarten and, if the dog bites one of the kids, saying that the harm to kids is done by the dog. Technically correct, but the person who brought the dog bears responsibility.

It only does in a certain system that encourages it. Tax processed food enough to pay for healthcare, give people access to fresh veggies (already the case in many places but not everywhere, can be subsidised), give people enough free time to cook by capping contract hours and setting a decent minimum salary, make cities walkable with grocery shops around the corner or easily reachable by public transport.

I'm just describing life most European cities by the way, even though things are changing slowly.

Not sure why this is modded as "troll" when this is describing something that has happened.

Of course the question remains of whose definition we should use. But people would rather be divided by a word than actually talk.

Second link is incorrect and should be this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I don't know why you try to minimise how evil the CIA is. Maybe you don't have all the info, or maybe you think it's fine to do evil things under the pretext of national security.

If it's the former, here is a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I hear this book is also good: https://www.jeffsachs.org/news...

If the latter: can we please agree that arranging coups in distant countries has nothing to do with national security? When the US was attacked as a nation on its soil, it was by an organisation that had initially been supported financially by the CIA, arguably indirectly. So the CIA carries some responsibility for the only recent attack on national security in the US, that I can think of.

It can be, depending on the context. For someone who does not interact with companies that require an age check, the former is clearly superior to the latter. So yes, if you provide a service that requires an age check, the burden of the age check can be on you, that's not unreasonable. And let us be clear, social media companies deserve zero sympathy, they are not owed the technical means to maintain their addictive business model.

Side note I wouldn't map "liberalism Vs conservatism" to "left Vs right" (and I'm not certain that you did), especially given how "liberalism" doesn't have a unique definition, depending on where and when it is used. Some concepts valued by some liberals are seen as problematic by some leftists, for example private property. Where and when I grew up, "liberal" was used as synonym for "centre right".

I thin one reason for dual boot used to be "Windows for games, Linux for everything else" but wine and proton have made that reason disappear.

No, he claimed that "Most people lack enough protein".

When I asked for evidence, he failed to provide it. He provided evidence about old people and athletes. Most people are neither old nor an athlete.

He also provided evidence that more protein intake does not make a difference for old people (last link in the long list of links). So there's contradicting evidence.

Evidence for the claim would be a meta study that shows protein intake would bring a benefit for most people.

I agree. I mentioned "obsessing" because that is the vibe I got from the post I was replying to. I believe you can eat healthy without worrying too much about it. How to eat well isn't complicated, nor is it secret knowledge. It shouldn't require significant brain bandwidth to do it right.

I will add that allowing oneself some exceptions is good for mental health (for instance eating cake and drinking alcohol is generally not great, but a slice of cake with a bit of sparkling wine on a special occasion can foster one's happiness, just don't have a special occasion every day).