2 ms·

Many many people care more than the end product, for example whether a shirt is made of cotton with the forced labor, carbon emissions of public transport, etc.

Many many people care more than the end product, for example whether a shirt is made of cotton with the forced labor, carbon emissions of public transport, etc. In terms of engineering software, you care the cost. An intelligent agent may try to read unnecessary files and it's time to stop it to save tokens and avoid polluting the context.

usef- 2mo ago
He didn't advocate for being completely blind in every way. You might care about working conditions without understanding how the textiles, dyes or cotton production works. These non-programmers probably shouldnt use computers at all, right, since they don't understand them?
user43928 2mo ago
I doubt that it is more efficient for someone to routinely watch every line of output or stop to review terminal commands, rather than waiting for the turn to complete. It is a broader debate about agentic AI, and whether one should relinquish control to the tool rather than aim for full understanding of every action taken. The people arguing for a hands-on, fully in control approach are losing ground by the week, in my opinion.
- mcmcmc 2mo ago
  It’s definitely on the high friction side of the usability/security tradeoff, I just think auto modes like this are as liability-inducing as handing a script kiddie intern full admin on your production environment The real answer is somewhere in the middle and is probably a mix of traditional AV/EDR and AI QA judges that mitigate risk of running more or less random arbitrary code and auto approve based on configured detection rules and your personal risk tolerance. Would it suck to stick an EDR sensor in every code execution environment spun up for an agent to run a python script… yes. It would also suck if you were responsible for hacking a company without knowing about it because you didn’t watch what your AI was doing
9dev 2mo ago
I can be against animal testing without being a chemist or having a full understanding of the experiments being made on them. Knowing it's cruelty is enough to make opposition a valid and defensible position.

usef- 2mo ago

He didn't advocate for being completely blind in every way. You might care about working conditions without understanding how the textiles, dyes or cotton production works. These non-programmers probably shouldnt use computers at all, right, since they don't understand them?

user43928 2mo ago

I doubt that it is more efficient for someone to routinely watch every line of output or stop to review terminal commands, rather than waiting for the turn to complete. It is a broader debate about agentic AI, and whether one should relinquish control to the tool rather than aim for full understanding of every action taken. The people arguing for a hands-on, fully in control approach are losing ground by the week, in my opinion.

mcmcmc 2mo ago
It’s definitely on the high friction side of the usability/security tradeoff, I just think auto modes like this are as liability-inducing as handing a script kiddie intern full admin on your production environment The real answer is somewhere in the middle and is probably a mix of traditional AV/EDR and AI QA judges that mitigate risk of running more or less random arbitrary code and auto approve based on configured detection rules and your personal risk tolerance. Would it suck to stick an EDR sensor in every code execution environment spun up for an agent to run a python script… yes. It would also suck if you were responsible for hacking a company without knowing about it because you didn’t watch what your AI was doing

9dev 2mo ago

I can be against animal testing without being a chemist or having a full understanding of the experiments being made on them. Knowing it's cruelty is enough to make opposition a valid and defensible position.