instead of cursing and attacking, you can have actual discussions. most of the comments in this thread are hating towards trump and his policies without actually discussing any of the policies. Maybe you can't even read the comments. Just blank statements and making fun of trump and his policies. If u have any counters to them u will get flagged and downvoted to hell. Just like your comment, HN has gone from an actual intellectual discussions, to Bluesky style hatred and making fun. Good job proving my point.
its really cool, but for real life use cases i think it lacks the ability to have a silent text stream output for example for json and other stuff so as its talking it can run commands for you. right now it can only listen and talk back which limits what u can make with this a lot
If Anthropic does give the DoD what they want, does that magically stop China, Iran, Russia, etc from advancing in AI arms development?
If Anthropic doesn't give the DoD what they want, does that mean that China, Iran, Russia, etc magically leapfrog not only Anthropic, but the entire US defense industry, and take over the planet?
> If Anthropic does give the DoD what they want, does that magically stop China, Iran, Russia, etc from advancing in AI arms development?
No
> If Anthropic doesn't give the DoD what they want, does that mean that China, Iran, Russia, etc magically leapfrog not only Anthropic, but the entire US defense industry, and take over the planet?
The risks are high, so if you're the US, you want a portfolio of possible winners. The risks are too high to not leverage all the cutting edge AI labs.
Anthropic was already giving them that. It’s not like they need domestic mass surveillance or autonomous kill bots to have a portfolio of possible winners. If the goal is to keep the US competitive in AI, this whole process was actively unhelpful. Honestly more helpful for our adversaries than for us.
Why are you assuming that people in China, Iran, Russia etc are not having these exact same conversations, and perhaps a powerful example from the USA, along with some belief that the USA will not be able to easily get this technology, help inspire them to abstain as well?
However horrific the regimes in these countries are, the people behind the technology there are just as likely to be intelligent and moral human beings as the people in the USA and Europe working on these are.
No, that's precisely why I'm opposed to it happening here, and why I prefer the idea of Anthropic limiting their contribution to creating such a scenario.
With the benefit of hindsight we know the Nazis in fact were not racing to develop The Bomb. Reasonable assumption to have oriented around at the time though.
Its not just the atomic bomb im talking the usa had the best production of fighter jets, bombers, all kinds of communication technology, deciphering technology all the ammunition, all of those together beat the Nazis and they were trying their best to develop better and more advanced technologies than usa!
The only two atomic weapons ever deployed weren't even targeting Nazi Germany, but Japan. Dark but true: they were both deliberately and knowingly targeted at civilian populations.
"Needed to win the war," no. The US could've continued to firebomb and then follow with a land invasion, which would've killed both more Japanese and more Allies.
Was it the best path to end the war? Certainly.
The modern argument around targeting civilians or not was not even relevant at the time due to the advent of strategic bombing, which itself was seen as less-horrific than the stalemated trench warfare of WW1. The question was only whether to target civilian inputs to the military with an atomic weapon (and hopefully shock & awe into submission) or firebomb and invade.
I think I have seen more open source projects get released since LLMs came out and the rate seems to be increasing. The cost of making software and open sourcing it has gone down a lot. We see some slop but as the models get better, the quality will get better and from the pace I have seen we went from gpt-3.5 to now opus4.6 i dont think it will be long before the LLMs get much better than humans in coding!
Couldn’t agree more, people forget most software out there has generally shitty code anyways. Also this is the worst the llms will be and they will only get better as time goes on…
I haven’t yet tried openclaw but can someone tell me how is this project different than that? Is this basically a different take on the same thing as openclaw? Dont get me wrong im not against it I just was wondering if theyre basically doing the same thing? If that’s the case I actually appreciate both projects, but idk what theyre doing and how theyre different?
It's a different take and heavily inspired at first by OpenClaw, which is a great product and Peter the founder is an amazing human being. I'm adding features than I want, since I do Moltis for my own use but also try to add features than others will enjoy.
I think Rust makes a lot of sense security wise, it does add benefits like being a single binary and very easy to install. I also tried to make it easy to try with a 1-click deploy on the cloud.
I'm not sure this is convincing enough but I think you can only judge by yourself trying it out, and I'd love feedback.
Aside from security and efficiency, is there anything openclaw and do that moltis can't? Like for example, does moltis have the "heartbeat" thing, short and long term memory, can update a soul.md etc?
I'm so keen to try openclaw in a locked down environment but the onboarding docs are a mess and I can see references to the old name in markdowns and stuff like that. Seems like a lot of work just to get up and running.
Thanks for the explanation! I love different takes, so good luck! I will try it later on. As I said i haven’t tried openclaw but just a quick look it seems like your take has all the pain points of openclaw fixed! Thanks Fabien
There's nothing ironic, as since the GP said there is no risk associated with GitHub. Git fundamentally prevents vendor lock-in and tampering, and the project is open, so the US have no leverage and pose no threat at all here.
its not about leverage or threat, same as the office products, the french owned their docs at the end of the day, i thought it was about sovereignty and using french alternatives?
It's the code that's hosted on GitHub, not the documents. Easier to move, easier to negotiate a move. You get visibility and easy distribution until they feel the need to bail.
