That's kinda what happens with DNA -- a random mutation will make the resulting organism 'incompatible with life' -- or it will create a change that gives a huge advantage for survival.
This is the leg of the cycle when we go back to mainframes & centralized computing? With all the datacenter build out; why wouldn't you want your services adjacent to the LLM processing centers?
I'd wager that in the next 96 hours, with a LLM, someone could create a translator that would 'pack' a nginx or caddy configuration file into the relevant code that zeroserve could use. Or even more simply, just pickup all the Ingress manifests in a kubernetes cluster and rebuild the pack. The point being, the interface between the tool and the configuration is just another API, system operators are already describing the state of the system at higher level constructs, and the specific bytes that make up the configuration are an artifact of that.
Also, thank you windows for not having consistent interface ids after reboot. I had to rewrite a configuration file every startup with powershell in order to tackle this case.
Interfaces are persistent in Windows, that's why they get assigned such silly names as "LAN interface (42)".
If the mapping between the logical and physical interfaces changes, that probably means that your NICs lack proper IDs to differentiate them or the bus topology is somehow not stably sorted. I wouldn't blame the OS for this.
Don't want to go too far off topic; but the interface in question was a uniquely named internal network interface for a Hyper-V VM. Considering it's MS all the way down, I'd expect them to get it right.
MS got involved, and they are web servers that you send SOAP requests to, (to support MFC devices, of course) and the Windows stack uses UPNP to discover them, and register them by their UPNP names, and they tend to be sticky to their temporary IPv6 addresses, and often fail to rediscover when their temporary IPv6 address changes. Oh and the windows UI doesn't give you any ability to edit the 'port', failing instead with some incomprehensible "operation not supported" if you dare click the 'edit' on the port.
These devices have the wifi/ethernet bridge functionality being discussed, (as well as a bunch of other stuff) and are OpenWRT based. Built in openvpn/wireguard as well. We bought a bunch for our team way back when (IIRC they were < $20 USD then) Gl.iNet has other similar more powerful devices as your use case may need.
The killer app was conceived as early as the 1980s: an agent running on your computer, organizing your files, your schedule, your messages, your bills, bank accounts, etc. All the parts of your life that were routine drudgery should be able to be offloaded to a smart agent, based on your preference, to bring you the information you needed with natural language queries, contextualized to what you were doing at the time, when you need it.
What's being delivered now is, an agent running on someone else's computer, copying your data to someone else's database, with zero responsibility, or mandate to protect that data and not share with with anyone else (in fact, they almost always promise to share it with their thousand partners), offering suggestions and preferences based on someone else's so-called recommendations, influenced by paying the agent's operators, and increasing pressure to make using someone else's computers + agents the only way to interact with other people and systems.
There is no doubt that LLM's can do amazing things, but the current environment seems to make it nearly impossible to do anything with them that doesn't let someone else inspect, influence, and even restrict everything you are doing with with these systems.
> What's being delivered now is, an agent running on someone else's computer, copying your data to someone else's database, with zero responsibility, or mandate to protect that data and not share with with anyone else (in fact, they almost always promise to share it with their thousand partners), offering suggestions and preferences based on someone else's so-called recommendations, influenced by paying the agent's operators, and increasing pressure to make using someone else's computers + agents the only way to interact with other people and systems.
If we're going to have AI regulation, this is where to start. If a company's AI service acts for a user, the company has non-disclaimable financial responsibility for anything that goes wrong. There's an area of law called "agency", which covers the liability of an employer for the actions of its employees. The law of agency should apply to AI agents. One court already did that. An airline AI gave wrong but reasonable sounding advice on fares, a customer made a decision based on that advice, and the court held that the AI's advice was binding on the company, even though it cost the company money.
This is something lawyers and politicians can understand, because there's settled law on this for human agents.
> an agent running on your computer, organizing your files, your schedule, your messages, your bills, bank accounts, etc. All the parts of your life that were routine drudgery should be able to be offloaded to a smart agent, based on your preference, to bring you the information you needed with natural language queries, contextualized to what you were doing at the time, when you need it.
The hard reality is that you are still responsible for all of these things. If anything goes wrong at all, you are liable. Might not be devastating if it's just your shopping list or your photos mangled, but with taxes or bills? Even if the agent is running completely locally in your home, you still won't trust it fully if your livelihood depended on it.
The killer app is only possible if software is fully reliable, which we all know is not the case. Software is just that: software, it still has bugs, undefined behaviour etc. Agents are the same, they just break in different way and fixing them might be even more difficult.
Bottom line: you will always be liable for things happening in your name and we've been sold a fairy tale a very long time ago.
A few decades back, a lot of computer use was emails. And it was stored on someone else's servers - with everyone from server operators along the route, to the government potentially having access to it. Even HTTPS is a relatively recent thing.
I guess what I'm saying is - we've always had this problem.
As an email admin a few decades back, there's just a tiny bit of difference between "my corp or school has a mail server and holds my email and an admin could look at it" and "Google and a tiny number of other companies hold most everyones email and always looks at it".
Yea there have always been gaps in privacy, but nowadays it's several orders of magnitude easier for corporations to exploit that private data at scale.
reply