It's amazing how people think Apple has a clean reputation because they've added a thin layer of indirection to their participation in the surveillance ecosystem.
Because it’s hard to investigate that with old cctv tech. Unless the person on the video was easily identifiable, it’s hard to do anything to follow up. With the new networked AI tech you could search for the person across the whole network to find out where they went / get a better view of them.
> And with a fully grown adult requesting it to do so with zero care or due diligence.
I'm unclear what you consider reasonable due diligence in this case. Should the protagonist have assumed that the gym API was unauthenticated, and that the agent would discover this?
They should not have given a next token predictor unsupervised Internet access, regardless of what the marketing might have told them about its capabilities or alignment.
Don't use technology you do not understand in ways that might bring harm to others.
Exercise appropriate caution.
I don't think the guy itself is fully to blame though. Our whole culture has rotted quite significantly.
> They should not have given a next token predictor unsupervised Internet access
Yes.
> regardless of what the marketing might have told them about its capabilities or alignment
I think that marketing teams should be blamed for lies and exaggerations much more then people who trusted them. As is now, everything is too much biased toward the biggest liar out there.
Let it! Most innovation these days seems to be synonymous with "run into legal grey areas and make a buck while the getting is good".
As programmers, we damn well have responsibility for that which we write and execute. AI cannot be treated any other way. And that doesn't mean cutting corporate structures a check to pressure engineers as accountability sinks either. There needs to be a formally recognizable standing for a practitioner to tell their employer "no" that is recognized and backed by the public. Otherwise degenerate/harmful use cases cannot be professionally prevented. There'll always be a more desperate developer willing to take the risk.
The advice isn't for Drew Houston, it's written as general advice for anyone.
The point is that different people have different priorities, and retiring in your mid-twenties to enjoy your many millions is a perfectly reasonable choice.
Until one does it and realizes that the concept of retirement is not the same as the reality of such, especially for people who like achieving things, which is going to essentially be 100% of people who end up making millions in their 20s. I think this is why so many billionaires choose to be workaholics even though they have the means to do literally almost anything.
There's a very big difference between what you can achieve as an entrepreneur with low net worth and an entrepreneur with a war chest of hundreds of millions of dollars.
When you start out with effectively nothing, you are forced to take a day job while you build something out on nights and weekends. The pressure is high to take early investment - and essentially work for your early investors, instead of working for yourself, just so that you can work on your baby full-time.
When you have a war chest, then many more capital-intensive opportunities are available to you. Want to build hardware (i.e. without crowdsourcing)? Factories? Pharmaceutical R&D? Training open-weight LLMs? Hell, you want to start an airline? Take your pick, and I'm barely scratching the surface.
It's hilarious to think that an $800 million exit would force you to never work again. That's crazy. It only forces you not to work on that company you exited from. The exit enables you to work on almost anything else you can think of. You put $25 million away in close-to-zero-risk investments to let you live off quite an insane amount of interest (even if you only get 2% interest, that's $500k/year) and then have $775 million to work with.
Retirement generally implying “not working” is the disconnect here. For example, a person in poverty who quits their salaried job at 62 and has to go work at Walmart to keep up would be retired for some folks, not for others. Same difference for someone independently wealthy at 25 who pursues new businesses.
So exactly what was Drew Houston achieving at Dropbox? They stored your files in 2009. They store your files in 2026. Doesn’t seem like he achieved a lot. It’s not like Tim Cook who launched multiple succesful product lines during his tenure.
And you can still achieve things during retirement through adventurous travel or philanthropy.
So what exactly are you achieving by judging Drew, his life choices and how well you think he compares to the CEO of Apple?
You're "retired". Shouldn't you be trekking through Borneo or writing the follow-up to Plato's allegory of the cave while sipping a cocktail on the shores of Fiji?
Well, I don't want to judge your retirement and what you're achieving by shitposting, but surely you're aware that the Camino de Santiago is a pilgrimage route that for over a millennia has been walked for spiritual growth.
In which case, fine, return to work, start a new company, start a foundation, whatever. Accepting the aforementioned big fat cheque from Steve Jobs affords you those options.
This doesn't seem quite as clear-cut as you're making out.
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) have accused Jane Street (JS) of market manipulation, JS claims it was legitimate arbitrage, and the case is still ongoing [1].
As I understand it, the ban only applied to Indian securities (not Asian markets as a whole), and was lifted back in July 2025 after JS paid ~$560 million (the alleged ill-gotten gains) into an escrow fund. They don't appear to have resumed trading, though [2].
All of your objections have already been addressed by the previous comments.
The original comment states that the person in question already had a suitable graphics card to hand, so it did not require a monetary investment.
GP clearly states that "someone who is into that that stuff" was guiding the process, so it did not require a significant time investment.
> I'm particularly calling out the hypocrisy of the original comment. Being Anti-AI, and then spending hours on setting up a less than frontier AI model.
I see no hypocrisy in the original comment.
You've also assumed the skeptic in question doubts the capabilities of AI. That may be the case (like you, I have no idea), but they may also have privacy concerns, in which case a local model is the appropriate choice.
There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of AI.
It's quite clear that the author means AI writing is now good enough to cause confusion and speculation as to whether a given piece of writing was human-authored.
The confusion and speculation caused by your nude transit adventure is about what the hell you're doing and why.
Such a move would also presumably be incompatible with Apple's highly lucrative search engine deal with Google.
reply