rbbydotdev (u/rbbydotdev)

rbbydotdev commented on OpenClaw is what Apple intelligence should have been jakequist.com/thoughts/op... · Posted by u/jakequist

tzury · 4 days ago

The notion that if it is good then the big-ones should have done it is the complete opposite of innovation, startups and entrepreneurial culture.

Reality is the exact opposite. Young, innovative, rebellions, often hyper motivated folks are sprinting from idea to implementation, while executives are “told by a few colleagues” that something new, “the future-of foo” is raising up.

If you use openclaw then that’s fantastic. If you have an idea how to improve it, well it is an open source, so go ahead, submit a pull request.

Telling Apple you should do what I am probably too lazy to do, is kind of entitlement blogging that I have nearly zero respect for.

Apparently it’s easier to give unsolicited advice to public companies than building. Ask the interns at EY and McKinsey.

rbbydotdev · 4 days ago

> is kind of entitlement blogging that I have nearly zero respect for.

Maybe the author left out something very real. Apple is a walled-garden monopoly with a locked-down ecosystem and even devices. They are also not alone in this. As far as innovation goes, these companies stifle innovation. Demanding more from these companies is not entitlement.

rbbydotdev commented on OpenClaw is what Apple intelligence should have been jakequist.com/thoughts/op... · Posted by u/jakequist

rbbydotdev · 4 days ago

While it's debatable if Apple would release something outright as encompassing and complete as OpenClaw, they should have helped developers and builders to build something similar themselves.

This could have come in any form, a platform as the author points out for instance.

I have a couple of ideas, how about a permissions kit? Something where before or during you sign off on permissions. Or how about locked down execution sandboxes specifically for agentic loops? Also - why is there not yet (or ever?) a model trained on their development code/forums/manuals/data?

Before OpenClaw, I could see the writing on the wall. The ai ecosystem is not congruent to Apple's walled garden. In many ways because they have turned their backs on those 'misfits' their early ad-copy praised.

This 'misfit' mentality is what I like so much about the OpenClaw community. It was visible from it's very beginning with the devil-may-care disregard for privacy and security.

rbbydotdev commented on Show HN: GitHub Browser Plugin for AI Contribution Blame in Pull Requests blog.rbby.dev/posts/githu... · Posted by u/rbbydotdev

ottah · 5 days ago

Why!? What possible benefit is there to stuffing my git commit history with this noise?

rbbydotdev · 4 days ago

It’s not in the git commit history, that’s the cool part! Git-ai stores it in git notes, easy to remove later if you don’t like it ;)

rbbydotdev commented on Show HN: GitHub Browser Plugin for AI Contribution Blame in Pull Requests blog.rbby.dev/posts/githu... · Posted by u/rbbydotdev

operator-name · 5 days ago

I'm not sold at the idea - for most projects it makes sense that the author of the PR should ultimately have ownership in the code that they're submitting. It doesn't matter if that's AI generated, generated with the help of other humans or typed up by a monkey.

> A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision. - IBM Training Manual, 1979

Splitting out AI into it's own entity invites a word of issues, AI cannot take ownership of the bugs it writes or the responsibility for the code to be good. That lies up to the human "co-author", if you want to use that phrase.

rbbydotdev · 5 days ago

I agree that accountability should always rest with the human submitting the PR. This isn't for deflecting ownership to AI. The goal is transparency, making it visible how code was produced, not who is accountable for it. These signals can help teams align on expectations, review depth, and risk tolerance, especially for beta or proof‑of‑concept code that may be rewritten later. It can also serve as a reminder to the author about which parts of the code were added with less scrutiny, without changing who ultimately owns the outcome.

rbbydotdev commented on Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants wired.com/story/how-data-... · Posted by u/achristmascarl

rbbydotdev · 5 days ago

I think EVERYONE is worthy of privacy. The ad cartel has millions (billions?) of lobby money in their war chest. Any real reform would be moving a mountain. Funny how it's framed this way; shows just how impossible it is to concede to privacy for all. Instead we have as another commenter said: "a two-tier surveillance state."

rbbydotdev commented on Show HN: GitHub Browser Plugin for AI Contribution Blame in Pull Requests blog.rbby.dev/posts/githu... · Posted by u/rbbydotdev

Anonbrit · 5 days ago

Because AI is really good at generating code that looks good on its own, on both first and second glance. It's only when you notice the cumulative effects of layers if such PRs that the cracks really show.

Humans are pretty terrible at reliable high quality choice review. The only thing worse is all the other things we've tried.

rbbydotdev · 5 days ago

> Because AI is really good at generating code that looks good on its own, on both first and second glance.

This is a good call out. Ai really excels at making things which are coherent, but nonsensical. It's almost as if its a higher-order of Chomsky's "green ideas sleep furiously"

rbbydotdev commented on Show HN: GitHub Browser Plugin for AI Contribution Blame in Pull Requests blog.rbby.dev/posts/githu... · Posted by u/rbbydotdev

verdverm · 5 days ago

Wouldn't the thing to do to give them their own account id / email so we can use standard git blame tools?

Why do we need a plugin or new tools to accomplish this?

Don't know why this has been resubmitted and placed on the front of HN. (See 2day old peer comment) What's the feature of this post that warrants special treatment?

rbbydotdev · 5 days ago

> Wouldn't the thing to do be to give AI its own account id / email so we can use standard git blame tools?

That’s a reasonable idea and something I considered. The issue is that AI assistance is often inline and mixed with human edits within a single commit (tab completion, partial rewrites, refactors). Treating AI as a separate Git author would require artificial commit boundaries or constant context switching. That quickly becomes tedious and produces noisy or misleading history, especially once commits are squashed.

> Why do we need a plugin or new tools to accomplish this?

There’s currently no friction‑less way to attribute AI‑assisted code, especially for non–turn‑based workflows like Copilot or Cursor completions. In those cases, human and machine edits are interleaved at the line level and collapse into a single author at commit time. Existing Git and blame tooling can’t express that distinction. This is an experiment to complement—not replace—existing contributor workflows.

PS: I asked for a resubmission and was encouraged to try again :)

rbbydotdev commented on The TSA's New $45 Fee to Fly Without ID Is Illegal frommers.com/tips/airfare... · Posted by u/donohoe

rbbydotdev · 6 days ago

> Requiring ID won’t make us safer, but it enables surveillance and potential control of our movements.

rbbydotdev commented on Applications where agents are first-class citizens every.to/guides/agent-nat... · Posted by u/chrisjj

rbbydotdev · 6 days ago

I’d like to see AI assist with human writing, not write for us. By this, I mean critiquing and asking questions. AI output can be so laborious to read, even when it’s correct. Often, it has an uncanny‑valley quality to its delivery.