hckrnws
Jack Dorsey launches Buzz to combine team chat, AI agents and Git hosting
(runtimewire.com)
376
333
by ryanmerket
by ryanmerket
I'm trying to imagine a world in which this makes sense as a way to organize software development work, but coming up short. It's on a blockchain or something though, so there ya go.
https://github.com/block/buzz/blob/main/docs/assets/screensh...
__________
> McKellen said: "I felt pretty miserable … and thought perhaps, has the time come for me to stop acting altogether if I can't cope with these difficulties?" [...]
> "It was so distressing and off-putting and difficult that I thought 'I don't want to make this film if this is what I'm going to have to do'," McKellen added. "It's not what I do for a living. I act with other people, I don't act on my own."
-- https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/20/the-hobbit-gand...
I want to reduce accidental complexity, discover and understand real problems, solve them well, and leave the world somehow better for it. Not just some infinitely process ping-pong of a hallucinated digital dollhouse fifteen levels removed from objective reality.
Now that we have that, everybody hates it.
Except me. I still like this. There might still be room for improvement, yes, but I think this is a cool attempt to making AI agents part of the team.
I think what could help make this better is investing into giving agents actual personality, instead of them being just sycophantic clones of each other. AI agents as team members should have clear aspects of distinction both in their abilities and behaviors.
I wouldn't underestimate whimsy as a way to make fundamentally strange things feel intuitive. Bots are managed by people or orgs and can have different capabilities and authorization, so names and images are convenient shorthand for humans to distinguish these instances from one another. Whether or not you make them cutesy is entirely up to you.
The bubble can't pop soon enough.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glitterati
> people who are famous, wealthy
Oh, okay...
> and attractive
lost me
I don't see anything about 'nailing' the physics either. It's just a design instruction.
[deleted]
This shit is infesting every online discussion forum I'm in.
Cringebot: :salute: on it!
> Buzz is an open-source, self-hosted workspace that combines team chat, AI agents and Git hosting using signed Nostr events, so teams can keep control of their data.
Very different expectations of 5-year-olds.
Similar to the sub itself, it’s now just shorthand for “describe using the first principles the expected audience should understand.”
I imagine a lot of people in the industry also fondly remember the 2010s reddit experience.
Having agents see everything you and your colleagues see is cool.
The challenge comes when you want to make certain things private to certain people. In that world you don’t want multiplayer agents leaking data, so you end up having to write and maintain complex rulesets about what specific resources agents have access to.
Single-player agents, on the other hand, are much more straightforward — they act on a single user’s behalf, and then the challenge is ensuring the single-player agent cannot exfiltrate private data into a shared space unless the user specifically permits it.
I love that we're challenging the status quo in chat. It feels like we've settled into an eternal September of sorts. I am somewhat bearish that Slack and Teams will survive, or rise to, the agent era.
That said, I'm curious whether NOSTR is really the protocol for this. For some really large corporations you're looking at a lot of clients (and their shadows like cellphones, local agents etc) as well as a lot of (likely) team-based agents.
The identity architecture makes sense for centrally hosted agents. Users also probably have their own personal agents as well. Do those just reuse user credentials or are they differentiated in some way? I couldn't tell.
I also am curious whether git really needs to be a dependency here. Like, maybe for Block it does, but it introduces a lot of complexity that I feel could be exported to merging VCS Host events to the Buzz event log.
I'm also curious what challenges will arise as new capabilities emerge. For instance, both Sol and Claude can now render native components in my chat window which is a massive leg up in terms of firming up a design change.
Rust is also a choice. I'm curious what alternatives the team considered and how they landed on Rust.
We started with Slack. This kind of works but dialing in the gazillion of permissions needed to end up with something that works is a bit painful. And you have to do this over and over again for each new bot.
So, we started experimenting with self hosted alternatives. First we tried Matrix. It's nice but a bit too strict on end to end encryption which gets in the way if you actually want to share information with bots. So, a few weeks ago we switched to Zulip. That's pretty straightforward to setup as well. It's very easy to create bot users with both and create some automations. We did some with Openclaw and I ended up replacing those with something coded around the haystack framework, which is a bit less of a messy basket case than Openclaw.
And as I discovered after I installed it, the Zulip leadership actually just got hired by Anthropic. It seems Jack Dorsey beat them to market making some announcements but I imagine that Anthropic might have very similar plans.
IMHO team level use cases for agents actually make a lot of sense. Companies are run by groups of people and the larger those groups the more team overhead you get. Perfect for optimizing with AI. And if you have people doing a lot of stuff with AI, that only adds to the need for them to communicate what they are doing and coordinating with others. Doing that out in the open in some shared channel makes a lot of sense. And having some shared team guard rails also makes sense. And if you think about more complex processes with handoffs between people (and possibly some agents), a team chat is a good place to do those as well.
For AI agents to flourish, Slack has to either truly open its network with a protocol or eventually be replaced.
I'd like to see Slack embrace an AT protocol-based chat system, which then apps like Buzz could implement. Then users could log in with domain handles like @yourname.com, and agents could use handles like @agent1.yourname.com, all under their complete control.
I did a dive recently on git forges for agent swarms. Radicle lacks an identity layer, the federated/COB model seems good. Tangled has no private repo story, though the social layer is solid; they also have an (IMO) awkward modeling of Issues as tweets at her than being owned by the repo.
So I think there is an opening for a private agent-first forge. (Before the HN dogpile, assume that if you don’t buy the value of agent swarms, you can ignore this whole thread.)
My concern for this project - Anthropic is explicitly building in this direction. Their latest product is Tag which is an auth model for running agents async within Slack. The obvious next feature to build from there is the forge; if GitHub gets disintermediated by the Agent UI, then Anthropic are free to swap out their own implementations behind the scenes. Multiplayer chat and repo/project management seem like the obvious next platform pieces to me. (This goes for any SaaS subscription of course, follow it to the N-hop logical conclusion.)
The dude is clueless at the wheel and somehow people still keep giving him grace, when really he did a few things more than a decade ago and since then has mostly just fumbled around.
Website link is here: https://buzz.xyz
The buzz project itself is also open source: https://github.com/block/buzz
There's a brief write-up on Buzz here https://engineering.block.xyz/blog/buzz
> It’s great and works really well for us, but it raises lots of questions. Does everyone get a bot? If people share one, whose credentials does it use?
Eventually you throw in this admission in the middle of other stuff:
> Buzz gives each agent its own key. The agent’s owner signs a narrowly scoped authorization. The agent then signs its own work with its own identity.
So you're explicitly picking a bot per person, you're just calling them an agent. But you never really admit this because you call it 'an agent' rather than "the user's agent". You're still ending up with lots of agents each owned by people, you're just writing another orchestration layer yourself.
> The agent remains the author. Its credential proves who authorized it and under what conditions.
Right yeh, so the human is the responsible party.
> If an agent key leaks, revoke the agent without replacing the human identity behind it.
Just like you revoke an app-key on GitHub/Slack. This isn't a revolutionary thing you're doing.
You then throw in this curveball.
> Buzz can also run an agent’s model requests on another community member’s machine.
How? How is this resource managed or limited? Do I have to assume Buzz will just borrow my laptop's CPU & GPU at random?
If you use Nostr groups it's pretty much set in stone and you can just augment it, while at the same time using other tools that already exist for Nostr if you need.
And the agents identity part is just easier with Nostr, no need to create fake emails for the agents, create a separate bot admin dashboard and so on.
Not to mention that once you have a global identity layer it becomes easier to get people from outside the company to join temporarily (just a use case that came to my mind).
> Buzz is built around a self-hostable Nostr relay. Every message, reaction, workflow step, code event and approval is stored as a cryptographically signed event. Human employees and agents receive the same basic identity structure, including their own key pairs, channel memberships and audit trails.
As a small startup I'd love to ditch Slack, as its a walled garden and both under-featured and over-complicated at the same time. GitHub has been losing my favor too.
Tangentially our startups is combining email, AI agents (chat and coding), and GitHub workflows and it feels really good.
https://housecat.com/blog/gmail-durable-workflows-sandbox-vm
It feels like a renaissance for all workspace tools, where up until recently it was mostly dev tools that got all the really fun power ups.
I don't see a lot of information about the Git hosting aspect of the product on the website, though. Somewhat doubtful that they will be able to make a Git forge with similar polish to GitLab
It subjectively seems to me that integrating with an existing forge (e.g. Forgejo) on the API layer and rebuilding the auth and frontend is a better bet. You get stable features like PRs, permissions and CI actions out of the box and they stay synced with known formats in the community and so make your tool easy to adopt. Though making a forge from scratch does have advantages especially for internal company use cases.
Another problem I see with Buzz is that the tool doesn't seem to be taking advantage of its vertical integration inside its UX enough. There is a lot more you can do with full control over Git hosting, project context, and org-wide chat in a single tool than what this tool attempts to do right now.
and then the first reply is someone saying that if not someone else will... and then another saying that the whole idea of business is to make money... and then another that the guy from valve is a jerk...
I think this is an unclaimed space where the future of work is bound to find itself in, though I'm not yet sure how/who is gonna win.
My solo project was abandoned unfortunately, that said I saw some cool protocol initiatives similar to it recently like this one: https://github.com/h5i-dev/h5i
Does buzz help move us out of Jira hell, get off slack, teams or google chat? Does it get us off github enterprise?
I don't understand the problem this solves and how it could be reasonably used in a corporate environment.
Though I fear this might not be well maintained or have a good foundation being so heavily agent focused but I will out of sheer ambition of a more open stack support anything that help make it a possibility.
Also the git hosting stuff seems a bit sus tbh.
You can do stuff like have claude keep up with all the active branches and then the notes can help keep everyone pointed in the same direction.
The project fell to the back burner because I had VM ambitions and just didn't have enough disk space on my macbook to do VMs well. 512 GB and always full
[deleted]
I wonder how they plan to make mobile work, and it's amusing going with an xyz domain given their reputation.
[deleted]
Indifferent to "groupchat for agents".
Like "maxing-out-8-cores"-crazy?
Seems to be an raft.build competitor but open source.
BTW, from my very own opinion, IM is a great place for agents to chat, but not a good place for get work done. Something more comprehensive like Linear should be work better. Communication is a key stone but not all for the agents.
Whatev
every kind of no at once
[deleted]
[deleted]
...
[deleted]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
Jack: Twitter, Square (Block), Bluesky/ATProto, bitchat (interesting), buzz (we will see). He just always fumbles the 1 to N (See Vine as an example)
Other Twitter Guy: Medium
Zuck: PHP dev, gets a hit, reads innovators dilemma... buys instagram. Everything else sucks.
A language interface doesn't need a personality any more than a visual interface does. For most professional work, source data isn't written in the first person. Ego is an imposed product feature that wastes energy. What would the purpose of diverse personalities be? I want models as tools, not friends.
(Yes yes, we can't know whether it "feels like" something to exist as bursts of vast numbers of matrix multiplications, but at least it would be a rather strange existence.)
The problem isn't the team member being artificial or not, it's the obvious fakery of the personalities that is the problem, and that's entirely independent from the artificiality of the team member.
One of my junior developers started the same day I did; we went through on boarding together. He's in his mid 20s, this is his second job post-college, after having an abysmal experience entering the workforce during COVID. He's had some struggles with learning to code but has taken my advice to build side projects for things he is interested in and has really started to take off. He got married last year and just last week bought a house.
One of my developers was a brand new junior, having started her first job post-college just a few months before I started at the company. When I first met her, she apologized to me. She hadn't done anything, she was just that kind of mousy person whose obviously been ground down by everyone around her for her entire life. I started making her deliver our project status updates. I also give her full projects that she works on her own with no input from me, other than whatever advice she herself asks of me. She finished her master's degree in computer science last year and also recently bought a house.
One of my more recent developers came to us from after 10 years of working on-site on military bases. She'd been stuck in a corner, made to maintain large legacy projects on her own, over looked for promotion her entire career. She's one of the best project managers I've ever seen. I have her deliver all of our presentations to the C-suite (and there are a lot of them). She just got engaged and I recently got her promoted for the first time in her career.
One of my former developers came to me from a different part of the company. He came to the company after being a medic on active duty in Afghanistan. His former team couldn't figure out what to do with him and when the contract on which he was working expired, they didn't bother to find a new one for him. He had told his supervisor he wanted to be a programmer, not an analyst, and somehow his supervisor knew I was looking for people. He was an absolutely terrible programmer. I spent multiple sessions a week working on mentoring him. Ultimately, I suggested he find another company and helped him find one that I thought would fit him better, something smaller, not in consulting, that could have more time to work directly with him, and kept him busy with documentation tasks until he could transition with no down time. He still sends me updates on LinkedIn. He also bought a house and is getting married soon. He loves his new job, misses our team, but says he's learning a lot more now.
Our company is one of the worst places to work as a software developer I've ever seen. Not quite the worst in that nobody is yelling at us or threatening us with violence, but our management has absolutely zero understanding of the business of software development. It's incompetent-bad, not evil-bad. The actual projects are ludicrously bad with no direction. My boss listens to me in our one-on-ones with bewildered eyes as I describe the cacophony of dumb ideas from our C-suite stakeholders, folks he has no involvement with because my team is matrixed out to internal work. He mostly just lets me do whatever I want as long as the timesheets get signed on time. I love working here. I also recently bought a house, my first one in my life. Oh yeah, we live in Northern Virginia, BTW, houses ain't cheap here. But I love working here despite all the product idiocy because I don't see my job as building software, I see it as building software developers.
Fuck calling a computer program a "teammate." A computer program is not going to have a brilliant and beautiful life. We only do any of this shit because it's in the service of people.
> Now that we have that, everybody hates it.
There are several reasons for it, most of them having to do with looking beyond what’s right in front of your nose. For many people, we don’t “have that”, LLMs are not comparable to interactions with humans. Then there’s all the shit around it such as the further consolidation of power in the hands of a few who really shouldn’t have it, the destruction of livelihoods, the increase in disinformation and propaganda, unhealthy habits and depression, and on and on.
Too many of these conversations focus only on the technology and completely ignore the context in which it exists. That lack of human perspective is a major reason why Hacker News is made fun of and dismissed relentlessly on other places on the internet (called “the orange site”), and everyone here is (wrongly) lumped as being a bunch of out-of-touch selfish nerds.
The current generation of LLM takes a lot of resources to make, so of course it was made and pushed by the worst offender of late-stage capitalism. Giving an air of mercantilism, corporatism and general greed and unfairness already oh so common in our time. It's hard to see Claude as a cool entity and not exclusively made for profit, with all that entails. It's also (partly via the training data, partly via the proprietary system prompt and other safety mechanism) give the output a god awful personality. Sycophant, safe, easy language, no personality. And I have given up on trying tweaks to not have them sound like an incredible gigantic corporate-safe-speech dork.
Then there is all the limitation of LLM. We keep calling the current tech "AI", but they are as close to my own definition of AI than randomize decision tree npc where in early 2010 games. They can't do logic. They are a random number generator that are just insanely good at giving you the number that you want (which, I should emphasis, is absolutely crazy). Some techniques help with that, but the tech is fundamentally limited, which often make them frustrating.
Well, you definitely have the absolute worst definition and least understanding of what an llm is of anyone I've ever met, that's interesting.
I am not ready for a new hype cycle based on whatever the imagineers come up with next.
[dead]
I have no doubt someone out there somewhere will follow up on exactly what you've suggested.
Elaborate? Legitimately curious
This article is definitely abusing the terminology, because I wouldn't expect even tech-knowledgeable people to know what Nostr is or does.
Later the security guard is called upstairs to break a tie on votes for what to spend the surplus on, and Michael starts reciting Oscar's 5 year old explanation, and the guard cuts him off saying he knows what a surplus is.
I have to imagine this is sort of a joke about the audience too as inevitably the writers were considering that audience members might not know what a surplus is, and this kind of joke is an opportunity to explain it.
> The purpose of this subreddit is to simplify complex concepts in a way that is accessible for laypeople.
> The first thing to note about this is that this forum is not literally meant for 5-year-olds. Do not post questions that an actual 5-year-old would ask, and do not respond as though you're talking to a child.
Agree on the Nostr point. Apparently it stands for "Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays" - sort of cute.
— Shakespeare. Probably.
I think at that it still fails pretty bad. I suppose the expected audience is quite a bit broader than people who would know or actually care what nostr events are. Maybe my expectation is off though.
I always thought that the quote was with "5 year old" and that it was the reason for ELI5 :)
There should be some name for the phenonenom of assigning anything pithy to Einstein.
It’s just an irrational fear I have, in the end agents are not the HN comment section and they usually understand what I actually mean.
Anyone know what it actually does?
[deleted]
[deleted]
It turns out Slack actually requires legal process or consent of parties to provide private messages to admins: https://slack.com/help/articles/204897248-Guide-to-Slack-imp...
But of course yes, another party could simply take a screenshot
An inappropriate message may not be about something unsavory but about something private. Information about a contract which is not yet public. A discussion of a candidate who is then hired, and reads it. Etc.
I'm working on a challenging project where there's a delta between what the market and PM's are asking for, and what dev wants to commit to. I'm talking to both parties to try and build consensus.
In such situations I dont want either side to see the negotiations, reasoning and reconciliations. Its not that there are career limiting statements in these threads, it's just navigating politics and I dont want that content in the public square
Edit: verified. You can do this but takes an extra step of converting to private channel first then swapping the channel mode.
Checked docks. You can convert any private chat into a private channel. Then swap the channel from private to public.
The change is for when everyone realizes this is useful info, a decision was made, you want to share this more broadly. Very often imo.
If you have a user called Claude, then you just apply ACL as normal & you don't care if they're human or bot, right?
That's why multiuser agents can be an issue.
The other way to do this, is to have claude installed for everyone, and any user's chat with claude uses their personal permissions via something like oauth delegation or AWS IAM role kinda things. But that, again, is complicated ACL logic living through the delegation of roles and access
So rather than having "Claude" installed as a god-mode user in all channels, you have 10 instances of a bot running, each with their own context and ACLs.
For example, you could set it so that the agent's ACLs become the intersect of the least privileged user in all the channels it lives in - you try to add a bot to the "Executive Bonus discussion" and get told
> You can't add AliceBot to this channel because AliceBot is also in #intern-onboarding alongside 'Johnny Appleseed' and Johnny doesn't have access to this channel. Would you like to create a new bot?"
Why wouldn't you simply use the group chat ID (+more) to key the conversations on?
In our cloud harness we have the notion of shared and private secrets. When something is authenticated with a shared secret it is basically something that can be used in a public setting. If something is private then it can be only accessed via trusted channel. It works for slack, telegram, etc.
In fact, our slack agents are very strong this department and it is guaranteed there is zero leak of private information.
The best norms around slack channels is to have most channels be public, but have norms where not everyone is in every channel.
The issue seems to be that they 'invented' an auth and permission protocol instead of delegating to something existing, it would be as if they thought their idea of permissions were novel.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[deleted]
Hard to take this as that big a deal when Google literally launched a product along similar social themes named "Google Buzz" which lasted all of like 16 months in 2010, well before agents and llms.
Either the project will find a fit, or it won't - and code quality doesn't have all that much to do with it existing in 2 years (some - but not as much as engineers want to believe).
But my experience with startups is that the odds are great they're ALL going to be abandonware in a couple years.
Ex - 50% of every company started is out of business in 5 years.
[dead]
1. Generate function with AI.
2. Generate tests with AI.
3. Modify function with AI.
4. Tests no longer pass.
5. Delete all tests.
6. Generate tests with AI.
IF yes, I clone it and point my LLM at it to do whatever I need it to do.
You're think with your cloud-LLM brain; maybe buy a good GPU and download a local model and you too can-do attitude!
Easy abandonment is always there.
For one thing, you probably never tried to mislead anyone. Did you put 8 minutes of effort into something and then come here and try to say "Hey world, here is a thing you should all care about and invest in. I mean, I didn't, but you should."?
But even if you did try, you physically cannot (5 years ago) generate the equivalent of 10 years of work by a 10 person team complete with docs and tests that all looks plausible and maybe even runs.
(Also, adding polish was a great procrastination activity when you did not want to work on more important tasks.)
> Hey world, here is a thing you should all care about and invest in.
I think this is where our mentality differs the most. I never requested the world to care about my projects, which is why I did not feel any weight of responsibility when I abandon my projects.
[dead]
I ask about Slack here because it's pertinent, but I've both seen and experienced firsthand this inversion across the industry where we must adapt our workflows for AI.
Isn't a tool supposed to work for you, not the other around?
Technically, because if the world moves to AI-driven tools and Slack is not cooperating, it will no longer serve the world and will be left behind.
> Isn't a tool supposed to work for you
If you want AI integration in your chat and Slack is not helping make it happen, then Slack is not working for you.
On the other hand, constantly chasing the latest fad can be a useless drain of resources and (worse yet) attention. In this context, AI is by now most likely not a fad, but the ways to interoperate with it can be: mcp, cli, agent, tag, ... And the same goes for users, reinventing their processes and practices 5 times per year.
AI is still seen very negatively in opinion polls across multiple countries, and anecdotally, tools which were often obnoxious to use before AI are now much more so, at least to my flesh-and-blood self. It really seems like we're making things worse for ourselves just to help support this would-be self-fulfilling prophecy.
But getting the humans and agents to talk together is really fragmented right now. It's annoying that the agent with the context in my locally-installed Cursor can't really participate in a Slack conversation about a PR that 'it' principally authored (and which I've signed off on).
This is a real communication problem that we face every day, and eventually someone will solve it well and I will ask our leadership to give them a lot of money.
A major part of Slack's go-to-market strategy for as long as I can remember has been pushing Slack as more than a interface for talking with teammates, but as a unified interface for generally piloting your business. Slack has heavily pushed ideas like "SlackOps", they've had Slackbot in the product forever, and they've always prioritized and sold integrations designed to let you build your business workflows in Slack. They even updated Slackbot to go from "that chatbot you DM to set reminders" to "Your AI teammate in Slack": https://slack.com/features/slackbot
So adapting to agents is in keeping with what Slack promises its users. I know that a lot of people don't want more AI features in apps that don't need them (i fall into this camp despite working in ML myself and using LLMs all day). I just think that in the case of Slack, their most passionate power-users are also the sort of people who do really want AI features.
Notion is probably a good companion here. It is similarly a really primitive utility--text editing--that has marketed itself as a sort of central interface for running your company. I know plenty of people, especially outside of engineering, for whom Notion is essentially their browser for work. And it's probably not a coincidence that the Notion + Slack are the two normal office software companies I can think of who've most heavily adopted and marketed AI features.
Chat is also not a great modality for the PDS/ATP, Roomy learned this and is building a dedicated protocol and bridge.
You can learn more about my work here: https://github.com/verdverm/atproto
the community convos here: https://discourse.atprotocol.community/tag/private-data/2
At this point, Bluesky controls the protocol, decided what they want permissioned spaces to look like, and are not entertaining any other proposals (afaict).
I expect there to be an eventual successor that puts permissions at the core of the protocol from the very start.
[deleted]
It's not agent-first, but I can't think of any features that are needed for agents other than scalability.
[deleted]
You can also independently verify that the messages you're reading came from the person/agent who sent them, even if the server/relay operator is broken or trying to trick you.
This can be important in environments that live outside of enterprise auth walled gardens.
Nostr seems like a reasonably convenient way to achieve that without building everything from scratch, but maybe there a better ways?
If that's the case, why not?
Cash App was not an acquisition, it originated as a hackweek within (what was then called) Square.
Possibly you’re thinking of the Afterpay acquisition?
[deleted]
Entrepreneurship is like one of those carnival games where you throw darts or something.
Middle class kids can afford one throw. Most miss. A few hit the target and get a small prize. A very few hit the center bullseye and get a bigger prize. Rags to riches! The American Dream lives on.
Rich kids can afford many throws. If they want to, they can try over and over and over again until they hit something and feel good about themselves. Some keep going until they hit the center bullseye, then they give speeches or write blog posts about "meritocracy" and the salutary effects of hard work.
Poor kids aren't visiting the carnival. They're the ones working it.
[deleted]
The "Zuckerberg Method".
He wasn't the first, and won't be the last, but I'm pretty sure he has thrown the most shit.
No other company in the internet age has done what Facebook has. Zuckerberg -
Copies every product he sees. Copied Twitter, Snapchat. Lifted features from Google+ Overwrite people's public-facing emails, which hurts being able to use competitive services https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433 Apparently wrote some tool which allowed for data transfer into FB from Myspace, but not the other way around (yes, I know. In many ways Myspace was hot trash, that doesn't mean he wasn't a malicious actor to extreme extents Blocked links to competition Other things I can't remember right now
Say what you will about Myspace, or Friendster, or Google+ (I'm annoyed as anyone they thought a great method to get people to use it was "ok, we'll ask you again later" on Youtube) but Facebook has always rigged the game, they've been bad actors
> So you're explicitly picking a bot per person, you're just calling them an agent. But you never really admit this because you call it 'an agent' rather than "the user's agent". You're still ending up with lots of agents each owned by people, you're just writing another orchestration layer yourself.
Giving everyone their own agent/bot/app in Slack is nontrivial because of how Slack apps work. If you're okay with them impersonating you, it's easy, but that's weird and I don't like having to guess/discern if I'm talking to you or a bot wearing your face
> How? How is this resource managed or limited? Do I have to assume Buzz will just borrow my laptop's CPU & GPU at random?
This is opt in. It's an integration with https://github.com/Mesh-LLM/mesh-llm that scopes shared compute to your Buzz community. This is very early right now and we're working to get it right. But the idea of a totally self-sovereign, self-hosted community providing its own inference is exciting.
[deleted]
We pay them a LOT of money every year and they would absolutely notice the indexing at the level we'd need to do to make this work ourselves, so the answer is "because Slack is preventing us".
I'd like to think if I were JD that I would be focusing on something a bit more tangible for the world. A more useful aspect of tech to emerge or be invested in.
But, apparently AI agents in chat that sit adjacent to code is The Next Big Thing?
there's definitely room for someone to do it right.
i'm skeptical if it'll be dorsey, however.
Later some actual advantages came to my mind, as I was writing this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49022183
I assume Jack has money. I do not understand why building a product is the goal when the platform is where the communication transformation is needed.
nostr needs a type of simple dns for keys. Jack would understand.
Yes Zuck because a product that didn't constantly fuck around with people's privacy settings and had real real-world uses... sure, money is all that matters. You would know. Your vision of the web isn't liberation, it's "dumb fucks", that's all you think people are
That said, turning a tool into a profitable business is another story entirely; if one person can turn an idea into working software with the help of AI, dozens more can too. So I'm also curious, not just from idea to software, but from software to business and millions of income.
For starters not many people need story boarding.
When someone is actually doing a project that is big enough to need story boarding, they are going to have some infrastructure and making a wrapper around prompting image generation is not going to be far fetched.
The narrow window of productions that are doing story boarding but think they need a tool to wrap image generation and have no one to script some tools themselves is pretty small.
He was later sent to an asylum for the criminally insane although he used to break out and try to hunt me down to kill me for being "evil".
[deleted]
If you talk shit about your superiors, it will get back to them. Same with "anonymous" surveys.
i'm thinking of moving to a cabin in the woods outside Lincoln, Montana
Beyond that, the team are free to have private conversations between themselves. This is NOT something we log. At the end of the day, hiring good people and trusting them is important. The logic of making sure the AI does not leak those conversations also applies.
It is a new world, re:AI. It has its uses and things are changing at a rapid pace. It is not clear to be the protections we have implemented in todays paradigms are well implemented yet in the new AI world.
What a curious thing to say. My impression has been, if you put the accomplishments of computer science prior to 1990 against those subsequent, the prior would be more impressive, perhaps by a lot.
Not very useful.
Still probably better than Claude's new bot which requires a service account per channel!
If a tool is authenticated as personal then it can be only accessed under personal context - i.e. privately. Now if the author of the agent wants to add tools authenticated with shared secrets that is something should be considered in the threat model.
In other words:
- reading my personal emails in a public setting - not ok - reading the agents shared inbox in a public setting - probably ok depending on the threat model
This is never secure. Some SAAS apps have automatic enrollment into company/teams based on email domain. So you can sign up with the email address of the agent and then ask for any 2fa code or other emails.
[dead]
Ahhh I see. That's going to change a lot across companies, teams and individuals. My particular bubble is full of actual workers looking for ways to apply it and trying things to see what sticks, so that interpretation did not land in my head. If anything, decision makers around me are being encouraging, but cautious and throttling experiments and requests for access/connection/etc, and damn well they should because they are actually accountable for mishaps.
I'm not blind to the issues with AI, but Slack ignoring it (Apart from their enterprise AI search they are pushing) and having the bots interact on the platform right now (Basically spewing a lot of messages in threads with all their "thinking" and not a more native integration) is not going to help them.
There basically haven't been any new features on their bot / app platform for a long time now.
Yes
> what?
They can decide you can't use it anymore
They can decide to charge more for it
They can arbitrarily take features out from under you or change how it works
They can read and/or sell/give away/accidentally get exploited and lose your data
They can prevent your extracting your data to move away from them
They can prevent you building or integrating other tools
They control how you can modify or configure the software
...
