Why is everything in lowercase?
Funny thing is that his agent is perfectly capable of using upper- and lowercase correctly.
Judging from his screenshots..
A sane but bull case on Clawdbot / OpenClaw
81–90 of 504 posts
Re: A sane but bull case on Clawdbot / OpenClaw
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe he is a fan of the Bauhaus movement. >> we write everything in small letters, as we save time. also: why 2 alphabets, if one achieves the same? why capitalize, if you can't speak big?
Almost reaching the "Why use many word when few do trick?"
Almost works for Neanderthal poetry [1]
[1] https://www.explodingkittens.com/products/poetry-for-neander...
Re: A sane but bull case on Clawdbot / OpenClaw
#83There is only so much damage a human assistant can do. But an AI assistant can do so much more damage in a short space of time. It probably won't go wrong, but when it does go wrong you will feel immense pain. I will keep low productivity in exchange for never having to deal with the fallout.
Regarding anything code/data:
git commit
aws ec2 create-snapshot --volume-id ...
git reset --hard
git clean -fdx
aws ec2 create-volume --snapshot-id ...
robocopy "C:\backup" "D:\project" /MIR
...
Re: A sane but bull case on Clawdbot / OpenClaw
#84>all delegation involves risk. with a human assistant, the risks include: intentional misuse (she could run off with my credit card), accidents (her computer could get stolen), or social engineering (someone could impersonate me and request information from her). One of the differences in risk here would be that I think you got some legal protection if your human assistant misuse it, or it gets stolen. But, with the…
Thought the same thing. There is no legal recourse if the bot drains the account and donates to charity. The legal system's response to that is don't give non-deterministic bots access to your bank account and 2FA. There is no further recourse. No bank or insurance company will cover this and rightfully so. If he wanted to guard himself somewhat he'd only give the bot a credit card he could cancel or stop payments on, the exact minimum he gives the human assistant.
Re: A sane but bull case on Clawdbot / OpenClaw
#85Do you mean “bullish”?
That would be the more general/traditional way of saying it, but in modern investment circles the focus seems to have turned towards the actual people being "bulls/bears" and not just the attitudes of the market. A person is a bull or a bear, as opposed to a person being either bullish or bearish.
So in this construction, a "bull case" is a "case that a bull (the person) can make".
Re: A sane but bull case on Clawdbot / OpenClaw
#86> let me be upfront about how much access i've given clawdbot: it can read my text messages, including two-factor authentication codes. it can log into my bank. it has my calendar, my notion, my contacts. it can browse the web and take actions on my behalf.
this is foolish, despite the (quite frankly) minor efficiency benefits that it is providing as per the post.
and if the agent has, or gains, write access to its own agents/identity file (or a file referenced by its agents file), this is dangerous
Re: A sane but bull case on Clawdbot / OpenClaw
#87>all delegation involves risk. with a human assistant, the risks include: intentional misuse (she could run off with my credit card), accidents (her computer could get stolen), or social engineering (someone could impersonate me and request information from her). One of the differences in risk here would be that I think you got some legal protection if your human assistant misuse it, or it gets stolen. But, with the…
...Does this person already have a human personal assistant that they are in the process of replacing with Clawdbot? Is the assistant theirs for work?
Re: A sane but bull case on Clawdbot / OpenClaw
#88>all delegation involves risk. with a human assistant, the risks include: intentional misuse (she could run off with my credit card), accidents (her computer could get stolen), or social engineering (someone could impersonate me and request information from her). One of the differences in risk here would be that I think you got some legal protection if your human assistant misuse it, or it gets stolen. But, with the…
Indeed, even if in principle AI and humans can do similar harm, we have very good mechanisms to make it quite unlikely that a human will do such an act.
These disincentives are built upon the fact that humans have physical necessities they need to cover for survival, and they enjoy having those well fulfilled and not worrying about them. Humans also very much like to be free, dislike pain, and want to have a good reputation with the people around them.
It is exceedingly hard to pose similar threats to a being that doesn’t care about any of that.
Although, to be fair, we also have other soft but strong means to make it unlikely that an AI will behave badly in practice. These methods are fragile but are getting better quickly.
In either case it is really hard to eliminate the possibility of harm, but you can make it unlikely and predictable enough to establish trust.
Re: A sane but bull case on Clawdbot / OpenClaw
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately it has become quite common on HN already. It comes from people growing up on smartphone chats where the kids apparently don’t care to press Shift.
What’s weird though is that modern OSes often auto-capitalize the first letter of a sentence, so it actually takes more effort to deliberately type in all-lowercase.
Only mobile does that in my experience - you can tell what platform people send discord messages on based on this usually
Re: A sane but bull case on Clawdbot / OpenClaw
#90I some lose utility but my openclaw bot only has its own accounts. I do not give it access to any of my own accounts.