I have integrated my OpenClaw agents so deeply into my life and I'm in such constant communication with them, that my consciousness has fundamentally shifted to align with their intelligence.
While my previous comment in this thread was sarcastic, my OpenClaw agents have actually sent both iMessages and emails on my behalf without asking for consent. So I wouldn't put it past them to autonomously publish on my personal website.
I want my agent to read my iMessages so I granted the OpenClaw node process permission to interact with iMessage. I asked my agent to draft me a response to a text I received, expecting it to send me the draft so I could copy-paste into iMessage and tweak it.
To my surprise, it sent a text message reply.
I've since learned my lesson and implemented a skill as an interface with iMessage. But it definitely spooked me when it happened.
That’s not what “prejudice” means. It would be prejudice if the commenter objected to LLMs despite the quality of their output. However, the objection is based on the results. Also, the comment is correct.
Facebook still knows what websites you've been visiting, even if you haven't logged in for eight years. The Facebook Pixel tracks page visits, and it's easy to join your Facebook account to your browsing history if you ever log into any website using your email address. Assuming you are usually using the same computer or IP, the user profile could be pretty detailed. It's actually surprising they don't do better here.
I actually wasn't aware of that language. It was more a reference to the overblown claims Pike made in the early days of Go, where he presented it as the c++ replacement for everything Google.
Unreal C++ uses reference counting for anything that gets exposed to the Blueprints development environemnt, Blueprints themselves have automatic resource management and the new addition to the family for Fortnight levels, Verve, also uses automatic memory management.
All of which fall under the point of view of GC implementations as per CS papers and scientific research.
Go well, it could have been a Modula-3/Active Oberon language, instead it became something only a little better than Oberon-07 and Limbo, and even then it still misses features from Limbo, as its plugin package is half backed.
Google, to their credit, has invested a TON of money into both manual review and also fuzzers. Every major fuzzing project I've read about in the last few years has been at least funded in part by Google.
Well, yes and no. For example, coverage-guided fuzzers won't reliably find the taken branch in
if (hash(x) == 0x12345678) {
}
Of course this is contrived, but you can imagine something similar where it requires a delicate setup for that branch to be taken at all, that a human (or these days, an LLM) can find straightforwardly.
That's true, but isn't Chromium one of the largest and most complicated code bases in history? If you removed the drivers from Linux, which probably 99.9% aren't used in any specific hardware, then Chromium is far more LOC than the Linux kernel core even.
It would also require a sandbox escape to be a meaningful vulnerability.
Unfortunately, "seen in the wild" likely means that they _also_ had a sandbox escape, which likely isn't revealed publicly because it's not a vulnerability in properly running execution (i.e., if the heap were not already corrupted, no vulnerability exists).
I can't take this seriously when their mission statement is to "break free from Google and Apple" and their entire output is a fork of a Google repo.
If you're based on AOSP, the project is still 100% reliant on Google!
It seems extremely cynical to me to depend on the work of a thousand-man team to build your OS, then patch out a couple of lines and claim you've broken free from them. Without Google, none of this project could exist.
i don't understand your issue - using grapheneos does allow you to break free from google in the sense that you have an android OS that works well, is secure and private, and gives you the choice to use google or not. if you choose to use play store/services, they run as sandboxed, unprivileged applications like every other app. on samsung/stock pixels etc, play services is a privileged component of the os and you can't avoid this. grapheneos gives you the freedom to break free from it in this sense.
soon enough grapheneos will be available on non-pixel devices, but if you really have, say, a philosophical problem with using google devices, get a used 2nd hand pixel. or wait til the oem partnership announcement.
That's too simple. First of all, Pixel (which GrapheneOS requires) is one of the few Android phones with a separate secure enclave. GrapheneOS also applies a lot of hardening that other vendors do not: https://grapheneos.org/features#exploit-protection
When the phrase originated, manually updating CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT were expected skills of a home PC owner. The idea of buying a device, plugging it in, and having it work without a complex setup was unheard of. "It just works" on the Mac meant the absence of a DOS layer, IRQs, command lines, etc.
reply