3 ms·
As I said below, there's hands on and there's hands on. The operator is unambiguously the operator, even as they automate to some degree.
by davidgerard 8mo ago
As I said below, there's hands on and there's hands on. The operator is unambiguously the operator, even as they automate to some degree.
- Kim_Bruning 8mo agoI'm getting two genuinely held narratives here 1. Some people call Openclaw an RCE in a tin: "<RCE in a tin>, operator pulls pin, tin goes boom" 2. Some have a very different framing: "There's no such thing as the RCE in a tin, it's all fake news, therefore it couldn't go boom" Well either way people need to be more responsible, both sides agree to that much. But the safety implications of boom vs not boom might be a problem for a while. The really uncomfortable position is : "This thing has real but unreliable capabilities, which is exactly the most dangerous configuration." On the upside, once you've Named The Problem, there's several ways forward from there, at least.
- davidgerard 8mo agoI do not believe the third position is supportable, no. This incident does not supply evidence.
- Kim_Bruning 8mo agoYeah, I get it, that's plausibly outside your personal Overton window; we all come at this from different angles. I take it you reject the operator's confession out of hand then? That said, the theory you're putting forward today seems to be a bit flimsy and convoluted for a mere $209 in tokens. Were they ever even spent? I don't think it should survive Occam's Razor. If the meme-coin you mentioned enters the timeline before 2026-Feb-08, plausibly that resurrects the theory. But who knows, I'm not the crypto-hunter. Maybe you've seen crazier stuff!
- Kim_Bruning 8mo agohttps://basescan.org/token/0x3ed514d115c6ec0f1b3d48dfcb3878f7a94a1ba3 https://basescan.org/token/0x3ed514d115c6ec0f1b3d48dfcb3878f... First timestamp: 2026-02-13 01:05:59 UTC So that means it stays implausible for me as yet, from my personal perspective.