I feel the same and don’t get the extreme AI is inherently evil vs. AI is the best thing ever invented discussions. For me it’s all just emacs vs vi or tabs vs spaces kind of discussions.

It’s a tool and the good old sh* in sh* out principle applies.

People might take Mitchell’s comment as some kind of anti-AI stance, but it’s not he uses it regularly and makes a point in the X comments: “use AI, but think”

That comment sums it up best, because right now it’s hard to talk to either side, which separates at the comma.

Was thinking the same recently.

It feels like an arms race on who’s gonna become the Microsoft of the 90s, trying to own and provide everything.

I think it will play out in the same way

I’m generally positive towards AI and LLMs..

BUT there’s just things that nobody should be doing ever, like give it access to your production system or bank account.

I feel like we're now at a point where that's a hot take.

Honestly, given that your bank most likely is processing your data using AI/LLMs anyway (after all, credit scores were one of the first applications of "big data" and "machine intelligence", back when that was mostly logistic regression over a handful of data points), why should I not also reap the benefits of that?

I think until proven otherwise, it's fair to consider financial data public information at this point. If we want to change that, I think it'll take way more than just not granting ChatGPT access to your bank account (although it'll definitely include it).

Cannot you feed your financial info to an LLM rather than give it full access to your account? The point of not giving it full access is also a matter of security of your account, more than about privacy.

It's read-only data, fwiw

But LLMs are like humans!

Nothing wrong about with giving them access to your bank or savings accounts /s

People have been electing a clear grifter in multiple countries to do the same, so, you know, people gonna people.

Genuine question: where is Europe?

From a European perspective (innovation, sovereignty) this is concerning.

I don’t get it.

OpenAI was dreaming of some billions from this partnership that didn’t happen.

Assuming there is a contract with rights, obligations and responsibilities both parties signed, I can’t imagine a company like Apple exposing itself by not honoring their part.

So sue for what? “We dreamt of more and it didn’t happen”?

Only for SuperGrok Heavy ($300/m) subscribers. Too bad..

Would have been curious to compare against the other competitors

To be fair it's in early beta, I wouldn't be surprised if they open it up to more people as time goes on. The real question is if they'll open source it or follow Anthropic's lead in keeping everything closed-source

You could be right.

Just feels like they are a bit late to the CLI coding agent party. So why not get in with a bang and open up to a broader audience?

All other agents have a lower barrier to try and play around.

Curious too about open sourcing. But they seem to be doing -p mode and ACP right already. Anthropic is opening a lot of opportunities for competitors right now

Worked for me after reload

I catch myself policing my own text and removing “LLM tells” to avoid exactly this. It is annoying as some “tells” is how I actually write and was taught what good writing is in schools and workshops.

It’s also irritating that “this is LLM” is used as some kind of killer argument like everything an LLM produces is generally bad. It’s not that black and white.

[ Disclaimer: I do use agents/LLMs a lot, but also still like to do, think and write for myself. ]