3 ms·
No. Hanlon's razor applies here.
by intrasight 6mo ago
No. Hanlon's razor applies here.
- b00ty4breakfast 6mo agoYou lose little by assuming malicious intent when it comes to billion-dollar tech companies and your money. They can prove otherwise by remedying the situation.
- tedivm 6mo agoWhen it comes to understanding large organizations I think a simple principle should apply: The Purpose of a System is What it Does[1]. Whether malicious or not, the system does what it does. If people wanted it to do something else they would change the system. The reality is that when corporations make mistakes that benefit them those mistakes rarely get fixed without some sort of public outcry, turning the "mistake" into a "feature". 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
- pegasus 6mo agoIntriguing concept, but I feel it needlessly breaks language. A more narrow (and to me, less pompous) formulation would be that social groups have their own purpose, different from (though not unrelated to) the purposes of the individual members. And this collective purpose can be read best from the actions of the collective, just like the purpose of a person is best divined from their actions (actions speak louder than words). More about where I think Stafford Beer goes wrong here: https://gemini.google.com/share/9a14f90f096e https://gemini.google.com/share/9a14f90f096e
- dgb23 6mo agoThe insight for me is that the assumptions of system need to be stated, not just the intent.
- tyg13 6mo agoNot really sure you gain much, either. Unless false confidence is your goal.
- b00ty4breakfast 6mo agoFalse confidence in what?
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- michaelmrose 6mo agoIt does not. I would be fairly magical the most favorable interpretation that makes sense is that its supposed to disconnect but also taking your money is a defect.
- conartist6 6mo agoWhat you do shows what you value. This clearly wasn't a mistake on the part of Anthropic. Time has shown that. They made the call based on what they believe in
- pfortuny 6mo agoNot to corporations, no. You do not need to be charitable to a corporation.
- grayhatter 6mo agoGross negligence is malicious.
- bryanrasmussen 6mo agook, how is this adequately explained by stupidity? If it is adequately explained by stupidity then you should be able to get it to display the same behavior without mentioning OpenClaw? Do you have any theory as to what stupid thing they have done to make this happen, non-maliciously? Because, Hanlon's razor doesn't just work by saying Hanlon's razor - you have to actually explain how the stupidity happened.
- subscribed 5mo agoIt was implemented deliberately, it triggers on the most innocuous thing, it scams the user from the money. It's not the stupidity.