4 ms·

This is like "I like lighting off fireworks at the gas station because its fun, do you have a "safe" alternative?".

Extropy_ 8mo ago
That's a total mischaracterization. OP is saying there are no safer fireworks, so some damage will be done, but until someone develops safer and better fireworks, people will continue to use the existing ones
- SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
  Or we will ban OpenClaw, as many jurisdictions ban fireworks, and start filing CFAA cases against people whose moltbots misbehave. I'm not happy about that option, I remember Aaron Swartz, but it's not acceptable for an industry to declare that they provide a useful service so they're not going to self-regulate.
- almostdeadguy 8mo ago
  My perspective is all AI needs to have way more legal controls around use and accountability, so I’m not particularly sympathetic to “rapidly growing new public ill is unsafe, but there’s no safer option”
  - mikkupikku 8mo ago
    Please just let us name the enforcement agents Turing Police.
BeetleB 8mo ago
Don't conflate "fun" with "useful". This is more like driving a car with little safety in the early days. Unsafe? For sure. People still did it. (Or electric bikes these days). Or the early days of the web where almost no site had security. People still entered their CC number to buy stuff.
- sejje 8mo ago
  It's like driving a car today. It's the most dangerous thing I do, both for myself, and those around me. The external consequences of driving are horrific. We just don't care.
RIMR 8mo ago
I mean, yeah, if you specifically like lighting off fireworks at the gas station, you should buy your own gas station, make sure it's far away from any other structures, ensure that the gas tanks and lines are completely empty, and then do whatever pyromanic stuff you feel like safely. Same thing with OpenClaw. Install it on its own machine, put it on its own network, don't give it access to your actual identity or anything sensitive, and be careful not to let it do things that would harm you or others. Other than that, have fun playing with the agent and let it do things for you. It's not a nuke. It can be contained. You don't have to trust it or give it access to anything you aren't comfortable being public.
- almostdeadguy 8mo ago
  There's absolutely no way to contain people who want to use this for misdeeds. They are just getting starting now and will make the web utter fucking hell if they are allowed to continue.
  - BeetleB 8mo ago
    If you can come up with a technical and legal approach that contains the misdeeds, but doesn't compromise the positive uses, I'm with you. I just don't see it happening. The most you can do is go after operators if it misbehaves. I've been around since before the web. You know what made the Internet suck for me? Letting people act anonymously. Especially in forums. Pre-web, I was part of a local network of BBS's, and the best thing about it was anonymity was simply forbidden. Each BBS operator in the network verified the identity of the user. They had to post in their own names or be banned. We had moderators, but the lack of anonymity really ensured people behaved. Acting poorly didn't just affect your access to one BBS, but access to the whole network. Bots spreading crap on the web? It's merely an increment over the problem of allowing anonymous users. You can't solve one while maintaining anonymity.
    - almostdeadguy 8mo ago
      I don't care about the "positive" uses. Whatever convenience they grant is more than tarnished by skill and thought degeneration, lack of control and agency, etc. We've spent two decades learning about all the negative cognitive effects of social media, LLMs are speed running further brain damage. I know two people who've been treated for AI psychosis. Enough.

That's a total mischaracterization. OP is saying there are no safer fireworks, so some damage will be done, but until someone develops safer and better fireworks, people will continue to use the existing ones

SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
Or we will ban OpenClaw, as many jurisdictions ban fireworks, and start filing CFAA cases against people whose moltbots misbehave. I'm not happy about that option, I remember Aaron Swartz, but it's not acceptable for an industry to declare that they provide a useful service so they're not going to self-regulate.
almostdeadguy 8mo ago
My perspective is all AI needs to have way more legal controls around use and accountability, so I’m not particularly sympathetic to “rapidly growing new public ill is unsafe, but there’s no safer option”
- mikkupikku 8mo ago
  Please just let us name the enforcement agents Turing Police.

BeetleB 8mo ago

Don't conflate "fun" with "useful". This is more like driving a car with little safety in the early days. Unsafe? For sure. People still did it. (Or electric bikes these days). Or the early days of the web where almost no site had security. People still entered their CC number to buy stuff.

sejje 8mo ago
It's like driving a car today. It's the most dangerous thing I do, both for myself, and those around me. The external consequences of driving are horrific. We just don't care.

RIMR 8mo ago

I mean, yeah, if you specifically like lighting off fireworks at the gas station, you should buy your own gas station, make sure it's far away from any other structures, ensure that the gas tanks and lines are completely empty, and then do whatever pyromanic stuff you feel like safely. Same thing with OpenClaw. Install it on its own machine, put it on its own network, don't give it access to your actual identity or anything sensitive, and be careful not to let it do things that would harm you or others. Other than that, have fun playing with the agent and let it do things for you. It's not a nuke. It can be contained. You don't have to trust it or give it access to anything you aren't comfortable being public.

almostdeadguy 8mo ago
There's absolutely no way to contain people who want to use this for misdeeds. They are just getting starting now and will make the web utter fucking hell if they are allowed to continue.
- BeetleB 8mo ago
  If you can come up with a technical and legal approach that contains the misdeeds, but doesn't compromise the positive uses, I'm with you. I just don't see it happening. The most you can do is go after operators if it misbehaves. I've been around since before the web. You know what made the Internet suck for me? Letting people act anonymously. Especially in forums. Pre-web, I was part of a local network of BBS's, and the best thing about it was anonymity was simply forbidden. Each BBS operator in the network verified the identity of the user. They had to post in their own names or be banned. We had moderators, but the lack of anonymity really ensured people behaved. Acting poorly didn't just affect your access to one BBS, but access to the whole network. Bots spreading crap on the web? It's merely an increment over the problem of allowing anonymous users. You can't solve one while maintaining anonymity.
  - almostdeadguy 8mo ago
    I don't care about the "positive" uses. Whatever convenience they grant is more than tarnished by skill and thought degeneration, lack of control and agency, etc. We've spent two decades learning about all the negative cognitive effects of social media, LLMs are speed running further brain damage. I know two people who've been treated for AI psychosis. Enough.