No, it's not, and this is why you were called a shill .. not merely due to a disagreement, but due to you actively portraying your opposition as malicious, while you actively describe multi-billion dollar corporations as just people trying to "pay their rent and feed their children by selling games"
This is like saying I can slip malware into a project and so long as the user is the one who executed the code I'm free and clear.. which we both know isn't true.
> Say I lay a log on a road which you can clearly see and avoid but choose to drive over and crash your car, that’s prompt injection.
Start laying hazards in the middle of the road and see how quickly the police introduce you to things like “reckless endangerment” and “involuntary manslaughter”. The general social contract is that you don’t take actions with the intent of causing harm to others regardless of whether the victim could have avoided the harm had they taken different actions.
A log the victim ran over last week loosened the bolts.
The prosecution wouldn't even blink if you pointed this out.
Unless the perpetrator intended for that to be the effect.
Have you heard about mens rea?
It turns random logging into laying logs onto a road intending to harm someone with the foreknowledge that they will harm the target and as a consequence any other people traveling on that road.
both are intentional, both are wrong, we don't need to compare two wrong things and say one is better.. you also cannot predict whether intentionally leaving a hazard in a roadway will give someone a choice, that very thing happens all the time and it causes a significant number of deaths.
Aaron Swartz didn't code malware into a project with the stated goal of destroying data.. and this has nothing to do with copyright infringement or an overzealous federal agency. How does this situation relate to what he went through?
I sincerely ask that you do not trivialize what happened to Aaron Swartz by linking what happened to him to any criminal actions on his part. He did nothing wrong.
Or if the AI agent decides "delete" means something much broader than just source, and includes other project resources, such as databases
At the end of the day we have a developer injecting malicious instructions into their project, with the openly stated goal of causing data deletion, and the people supporting that effort are doing so because of their personal ideology. We have laws against this for a good reason.
seems like this behavior would have a chilling effect on deathbed donations, especially when it sends the message gives: "screw you, we'll do what we want"
I also don't see how this behavior is in the public good, even if the donor has some ulterior motive, governments are free to reject donations
If you take one step further back, you can make the discussion about what deed restrictions are reasonable rather than about breaking the deed restriction.
Like for an example with different dynamics, Menard's will say you can't use the building as a hardware store when they sell to build elsewhere. That's a stupid restriction for society to allow.
the key to avoiding slop in this context is to have it write inline documentation (e.g. jsdoc), so that you can quickly review if it matches the required implementation/interface
No, it's not, and this is why you were called a shill .. not merely due to a disagreement, but due to you actively portraying your opposition as malicious, while you actively describe multi-billion dollar corporations as just people trying to "pay their rent and feed their children by selling games"
Deeply dishonest indeed.
reply