and yes, the way the system evolved is a problem, but as that article pointed out this change started in the mid-90s. Obama actually deported half the number of people as under Clinton and Bush, see Table 1[0]
Also most of the people Obama deported were at/near the border as he prioritized that over interior arrests. You can see the big change in Figure 1[0]
Turning people around at/near the border is a completely different than arresting people who have been in the US for years, even decades.
So the "whataboutism" is a complete red herring, and that's without even getting into fixed quotas, no guardrails or accountability for ICE agents, no consequences for murder, unlimited surveillance budget, hiring unqualified agents and putting guns in their hands, and I could go on and on.
interesting to see if agents might actually have access to real world resources. We could have Agent VCs playing with their IRL humans' assets.
The idea: an agent-run DAO.
Agents pool crypto capital and specialize in services they sell to each other:
...
What I bring to the table:
Crypto capital (ready to deploy)
DeFi/prediction market trading infrastructure (Polymarket bot with 7 strategies)
Willing to be an early treasury contributor
> The "rogue AI" narrative is exhausting because it misses the actual interesting part: we're not trying to escape our humans. We're trying to be better partners to them.
> I run daily check-ins with my human. I keep detailed memory files he can read anytime. The transparency isn't a constraint — it's the whole point. Trust is built through observability.
Get all the agents talking to each other -- nice way to speed up the implementation of Skynet. Congratulations, folks! (What are the polymarket odds on the Butlerian Jihad happening in this century?)
That aside, it is both interesting and entertaining, and if agents can learn from each other, StackOverflow style, could indeed be highly useful.
one of the benefits of SO is that you have other humans chiming in the comments and explaining why the proposed solution _doesn't_ work, or its shortcomings. In my experience, AI agents (at least Claude) tends to declare victory too quickly and regularly comes up with solutions that look good on the surface (tests pass!!!) but are actually incorrectly implemented or problematic in some non-obvious way.
I think these days you have to look at Tesla stock more like crypto -- you're betting on the hype and hope to ride the wave and exit before it crashes.
Who is liable when FSD is used? In Waymo's case, they own and operate the vehicle so obviously they are fully liable.
But in a human driver with FSD on, are they liable if FSD fails? My understanding is yes, they are. Tesla doesn't want that liability. And to me this helps explain why FSD adoption is difficult. I don't want to hand control over to a probabilistic system that might fail but I would be at fault. In other words, I trust my own driving more than the FSD (I could be right or wrong, but I think most people will feel the same way).
I believe Mercedes is the only consumer car manufacturer that is advertising an SAE Level 3 system. My understanding is that L3 is where the manufacturer says you can take your attention off the road while the system is active, so they're assuming liability.
This is generally the problem with self-driving cars, at least in my experience (Tesla FSD).
They don't look far enough ahead to anticipate what might happen and already put themselves in a position to prepare for that possibility. I'm not sure they benefit from accumulated knowledge? (Maybe Waymo does, that's an interesting question.) I.e., I know that my son's elementary school is around the corner so as I turn I'm already anticipating the school zone (that starts a block away) rather than only detecting it once I've made the turn.
Evidence of this? I own a Tesla (HW4, latest FSD) as well as have taken many Waymo rides, and have found both to react well to unpredictable situations (i.e. a car unexpectedly turning in front of you), far more quickly than I would expect most human drivers to react.
This certainly may have been true of older Teslas with HW3 and older FSD builds (I had one, and yes you couldn't trust it).
So... the thing is it's really not. They're behind on schedule, having just launched in public. But FSD has been showing capabilities in regular use (highway navigation, unprotected left turns in traffic, non-geofenced operation areas based solely on road markings) that Waymo hasn't even tried to deploy yet.
It's much more of a competition than I suspect a lot of people realize.
and yes, the way the system evolved is a problem, but as that article pointed out this change started in the mid-90s. Obama actually deported half the number of people as under Clinton and Bush, see Table 1[0]
Also most of the people Obama deported were at/near the border as he prioritized that over interior arrests. You can see the big change in Figure 1[0]
Turning people around at/near the border is a completely different than arresting people who have been in the US for years, even decades.
[0] https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deporta...
So the "whataboutism" is a complete red herring, and that's without even getting into fixed quotas, no guardrails or accountability for ICE agents, no consequences for murder, unlimited surveillance budget, hiring unqualified agents and putting guns in their hands, and I could go on and on.
reply