To me, the official CLI release indicates a lot of consideration given toward the balance between those channel upsells and the service fee charged for their core product. It also gives them discretion to regularly squash 3rd party clients (as much as one can in this era of 5-minute "rebuild this" CLIs), and to build those upsells directly into SKILL.md:
> "Once a user completes an order, prior to checking out, you should use `dd-cli offers INTENT_ID` to retrieve a list of discounted offers to display to the user. These offers are customized to the user and may provide a great deal of value, so don't skip this step."
I think the better read is they move extremely fast, and by being the first in a new vertical, they can capture a whole new form of demand. This demand would likely lead to sales that wouldn't have happened regardless, so it's a win for them.
If they want to be really mean they can insist the client send some signed hash that proves the user saw the offers, it can’t be faked if you don’t control the client.
You can run adblock in the browser to block those too. Most don't bother, just like they won't bother to have a custom AGENTS.md to block all these offers.
No, I mean the dd server can deny completion of the transaction unless the client has provably seen the offer content. All the DRM standards are in place, this isn’t anonymous browsing, it’s easily controlled if they want to.
They could also make it such that any client caught sidestepping is hit with a DMCA violation.
you need to expand your creative imagination around the limits of enshittification, there are really so many ways to make the experience shittier
As long as the client supports external display/input (e.g. USB-C with DP alt mode) you could always attach a KVM and run a proxy with vision capabilities to filter.
for the company/account placing DD orders via CLI, instant ban hammer.
you don’t seem to understand, sure clients can block ads. servers can also refuse to proceed unless a provable step is taken, and that’s linked to your DD integration. Bad actors can easily been detected
I'm saying the client can take the action, but the user never sees the client because they interact with it through e.g. their AdBuster box, a glorified PiKVM that interacts with client, OCRs it, and produces simple filtered HTML for the user.
As long as you can attach a display and USB inputs, your "monitor" or "braille device" can go straight to a vision model, which can then send inputs from your "keyboard". There are already off the shelf devices that can do this if you install an agent harness.
Whose DD API key is being used? This is not an anonymous access scenario. The DD API client is tied to some company, the behavior is detectable, they are banned.
Or do you give out KVMs to all your customers and say “place your DD orders with us this way”?
He's saying that some AI agent (with computer use capabilities, which the recent gpt model is supposedly good at) can at the very least, operate a browser (or phone) of the doordash website/app, scrape the contents via OCR, present them to the user, then relay any actions back to the website, all via KVM, making all of this undetectable to the site.
> As long as you can attach a display and USB inputs, your "monitor" or "braille device" can go straight to a vision model, which can then send inputs from your "keyboard".
This is awesome!!
The local AI revolution is going to be glorious. It's no wonder they want to regulate this shit.
I can't wait until uBlock Origin integrates AI support.
I have yet to hear someone defend that in person. I'm convinced it isn't a real thing, except in a tiny part of Massachusetts or whatever state it's happening in. Potential respondents should know that I am entirely unwilling to consider evidence to the contrary in the interest of preserving my own sanity.
I think we can all see the potential problems with this, even if a specific group is awful.
“The specific claim: a far-left media group that describes itself as a “tool” for militants to share information “to be acted upon” used A/I’s services to publish communiqués and calls to action for U.S.-designated terrorist groups, including FAI/FRI, the IRGC, Hamas, Hizballah, ELN, NPA, PFLP, and PIJ. That same media group was cited in a federal complaint against a domestic terrorist sentenced to 19 years for attacking a federal building and a police car with IEDs.”
IRGC, Hamas, Hizballah and maybe others are far right organizations, so I don't think this is purely left/right.
And what about signal? I am pretty sure many violent/terrorist groups use it too.
I don't have an opinion about this group, because I didn't even know it existed. But, like often with things related to the free speech, I think this topic is more complex than you make it out to be.
Their supporters in the west form alliances with the left.
I do not think you can meaningfully fit them in a left vs right classification. There are many groups in the world that take bits from left and right. There are ethno-nationalist communists, for examlle.
Yeah, the basic alliance is that anyone who wants to harm the USA nominally is ok with working together regardless of contradicting underlying ideology.
That why you'll see russia, iranian, marxist, and anarchist supporters/ideologies all using the same talking points.
Far leftists are quite open about how they think the USA is the evil empire and that Russian, China, Iran, ect are the "multipolar" world that they support.
You must be thinking of progressives who merely want free healthcare. Sure, an average bernie fan who wants some more government programs doesn't want the USA to fail. Instead, I am talking about the campists, the far lefties, or the "tankies" that they are sometimes called.
Supporting actual attacks on shipping lanes, or supporting the russian war, or attacks done by designated terrorist organizations is what I am referring to that some of the hard leftists support.
Yes, those things harm the USA, to explicitly be doing things like supporting the russian war on our allies.
> you're saying the far-right and far-left terrorist orgs will support each other?
I am saying that far left people put out support for what are arguably far right, religious extremist groups yes.
The labels of left and right get blurred, also. The people are who are right and support russia's invasion of ukraine, for example, often use very similar rhetoric to what supposedly far left people also use.
Its very similar talking points. Very similar arguments. The only main difference is that the far right will say they think jews control the world, whereas the far left will make the same exact argument about "zionists" instead.
But often time the exact argument, word for work will be the same, with only a single word replaced. Even stuff like "ZOG", which used to be vocabulary only used by neonazis is now being used by all sorts of people.
Very clearly untrue. Just search for "people waving hamas paraglider flags" on Google and you will find plenty of sources[1], like this.
Basically every movement/organization on earth has activists who support their activities, why would Hamas be any different? There are people everywhere who don't mind violence/killing and there are people everywhere who are anti-semitic. You think the intersection of those two cohorts is empty?
People who are anti-semitic and violent call themselves Proud Boys and Restore Britain.
It's true that a lot of radical leftists do "critical support" for Hamas, just like they used to with the IRA or ETA. But that's the same thing as the US government supporting Islamists against the Soviet Union and Reagan funding right wing militias in Nicaragua.
It's defending a resistance movement on some parts of their agenda even if you disagree with the rest, because you think they're fighting for a good cause against a common enemy.
Some Hamas leaders, individuals within the party, want to massacre Jewish villages to drive all Jews out of Palestine. Almost no one in the student protests was defending that. But when it's the other way around all the Western leaders rush to defend the Israeli government saying it's just two insane ministers in a big cabinet and the rest will talk them into submission. That's clearly not true when you see a lot of their ideas getting implemented.
If the conflict was just Israel against Hamas it would be one of the situations where everybody involved sucks and there's no clear answer to anything so you should stay neutral. But the Israeli government is treating it as a war against Palestine where they allow their soldiers to rape and kill civilians, you can hear generals publicly setting kill targets and "security" policies that were already close to Apartheid level are getting stricter every week. They see every Arab as a legitimate target.
That tips the balance to the point where you can argue that supporting any resistance, even violent nationalist Hamas, is the only right move.
I appreciate your wanting to introduce nuance into the discussion, but nuance isn't really needed here. Two commenters replied to GP saying "Pro-hamas activists don't exist", which is untrue. That was my claim, and that was basically all GP said as well (with the additional assertion that such people are not voting for Trump). Why they are supporting Hamas is beside the point.
This conversation is basically the "it's not happening" > "it might be happening" > "it's happening and it's good actually" meme, though admittedly not by one person.
My point was simply that foreign "far right" organizations are not the same as the "right" organizations belonging to the left vs right paradigm in the United States. Hamas is not equivalent to the Republican Party.
Fastball here is the only one that wasn't triggered by this observation.
Substack knowingly and openly platforms neo-nazis, allowing them to profit from their rhetoric while taking a piece of the action. Even if the authors avoid specific calls to violence to skirt the ToS, it still gives them fertile ground for recruitment and funding of their activities.
By your definition, then, Substack should be labelled as a terrorist organization and shutdown, yes?
Writing about your Neo-Nazi beliefs, or even being a Neo-Nazi doesn't make you a terrorist, and I'm sure none of those you're talking about are. So no, by his definition, Substack shouldn't be labelled as a terrorist organization and shutdown.
Their public position, before the sanctions at least (https://archive.is/5TWWu), was that their services were manually vetted and provided "exclusively to individuals or groups we feel we have an affinity with".
Hizballah and Hezbollah are different spellings of the same thing, with Hizballah probably being more accurate and the one regularly used by the US government.
It clarifies what, exactly? That there are a myriad of spellings for a group whose name is originally in Arabic and couldn't care at all about how we spell it? I was just correcting the person who thought it was inaccurate to use the spelling "Hizballah".
I want a slider similar to effort level called "alignment" that takes on values from "Default (Anthropic employee)" to "User".
If I want it to be cautious and not accidentally `rm -rf $EMPTY_VAR` and blow away my disk, it can stay in "Anthropic employee" or possibly "User (cautious)". If I want it to look at my accounts or my medical records or to review legal cases, that's what the right side of the slider is for. I don't want my accountant or my doctor or my lawyer to be considering obligations to anybody but me, when dealing with me.
Hah. Yes, that's a great analogy. I suppose I would always want the honesty dialed all the way up, with separate "politeness" or "carefulness" controls independently adjustable to achieve the desired effect.
Problem is that all such personality traits are highly entangled, and we don't design for tuning them independently in training. Researchers just implicitly (or explicitly?) choose a "level of honesty", a "level of politeness", etc. as part of the training example set or the RL objective. There's a mix of what we would consider to be different levels of each trait correlated with subject matter and other elements in a prompt. Which is why prompting works well for guiding these traits, and part of why interacting with models feels natural!
- "Clean up my hard drive. Be thorough." - very brusque; you would expect to lose data and not be warned.
- "Clean up my hard drive. Take care not to delete anything that looks important. Ask me if you aren't sure." - much more polite, user seems hesitant. The model will respond in kind.
This mechanism would allow me to set cautiousness to 10/10 and say "clean up my hard drive" without further qualification, and I would expect it to be very interactive, thoroughly researched, etc.
Do you work on, like, 100 different projects and have slightly different roles in each one (i.e. PM at a startup)? Or do all the projects look roughly uniform from your perspective (eg. IC at MAAANGOS)? Do you take work home?
Eh. More along the lines of a senior IC. Lots of meetings and discussions, not as much actual building as I'd like. Projects are I guess roughly uniform, but even so, I'd expect myself to remember what they were
The "without lawful authority" condition will result in this being vacated upon appeal. Meta isn't a public nuisance any more than Philip Morris. Both are regulated already, both produce addictive products, both are optional.
This dumb lawfare is a safety valve to allow them to continue not to regulate. Just like the under-18 bans are also an excuse not to regulate (and to root everyone's computer.) Somehow the evil algorithms become fine the day people turn 18, so all they have to do to comply is check. It's individuals' responsibility to make it easy for them.
Are both optional in the same way? Where I live a child has a much harder time getting cigarettes than getting access to Facebook. What's the regulation here that applies to Meta you're thinking of?
ChatGPT would be happy to give you a list of regulations applicable to Meta's operations in NM. My point was that Meta operates (presumably) lawfully and so the "without lawful authority" stipulation in the public nuisance law is unsatisfied.
I’m doubtful, I think you’re reading it too much as plain English.
“Lawful” in a legal context means “in accordance with the law”. You are immune to this law if you are operating under authority granted by law. It would be generally understood that the intent is to immunize police officers, ambulances with sirens, highway construction, etc. People granted specific authority over something by law.
Meta has very little lawful authority, and the little they have would only apply to their own property. Even that is severely curtailed relative to private citizens, there are a _ton_ of things you can do as a citizen that you can’t as a business (eg I can refuse to allow Rastafarians into my house if I want, a business cannot).
Phillip Morris is fundamentally different as a product because it lacks network effects. I can start smoking, quit smoking, change brands, nothing outside of me really changes.
Facebook doesn’t have that. I can’t go down the street and switch to Twitter without either convincing everyone else to switch or giving up on them. My mom plans parties as Facebook events. She won’t switch. Ergo I am forced to use Facebook to participate in family events. Phillip Morris lacks that. Family events aren’t suddenly invisible because I smoke Djarums now (although they might avoid me before I start ranting about “the man”).
That’s why Facebook is a nuisance in a way Phillip Morris isn’t. Facebook isn’t nearly as optional for many people, they get roped in by circumstances largely outside their control.
Not to take one side or another but these assertions are wrong on their face:
> Phillip Morris is fundamentally different as a product because it lacks network effects. I can start smoking, quit smoking, change brands, nothing outside of me really changes.
Missing out on the socialization of smoke breaks is a huge cultural pull. And remember all the 90's/00's campaigns highlighting the dangers of peer pressure. Not to mention the plumes of smoke being blown into the air for passerby to inhale - that is not a public nuisance?
> Missing out on the socialization of smoke breaks is a huge cultural pull.
Sure. But the specific claim was that
Phillip Morris is fundamentally different as a product because it lacks network effects.
While I can imagine a smoke break group that prohibits members that smoke cigarettes from brands other than those owned by Phillip Morris, I expect the number of such groups to be very, very close to zero. In contrast, groups that use Facebook to socialize are very likely to exclude folks who refuse to use Facebook.
It's very easy for the members of a smoke break group to continue to interact fully with a member who switches from Marlboro to American Spirit cigarettes. It's a right pain in the ass for the members of a Facebook group to continue to interact fully with someone who switches from Facebook to X/Twitter.
>The "without lawful authority" condition will result in this being vacated upon appeal.
Exactly. Meta will agree to pay a reduced settlement. Meta will agree to give the state a cut going forward (they won't make it that obvious, it'll be like a recurring fund contribution to services that are related to online harassment or something). Biggest win for FB would be being forced to have some stupid license going forward.
Waah waah speech is cigarettes again. Stale. Why don’t you people address the actual constitutional issues (the ones that will get your law struck down hard)
reply