upvote
You lose little by assuming malicious intent when it comes to billion-dollar tech companies and your money. They can prove otherwise by remedying the situation.
reply
When it comes to understanding large organizations I think a simple principle should apply:

The Purpose of a System is What it Does[1].

Whether malicious or not, the system does what it does. If people wanted it to do something else they would change the system. The reality is that when corporations make mistakes that benefit them those mistakes rarely get fixed without some sort of public outcry, turning the "mistake" into a "feature".

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

reply
Intriguing concept, but I feel it needlessly breaks language. A more narrow (and to me, less pompous) formulation would be that social groups have their own purpose, different from (though not unrelated to) the purposes of the individual members. And this collective purpose can be read best from the actions of the collective, just like the purpose of a person is best divined from their actions (actions speak louder than words).

More about where I think Stafford Beer goes wrong here: https://gemini.google.com/share/9a14f90f096e

reply
The insight for me is that the assumptions of system need to be stated, not just the intent.
reply
Not really sure you gain much, either. Unless false confidence is your goal.
reply
False confidence in what?
reply
Not to corporations, no. You do not need to be charitable to a corporation.
reply
ok, how is this adequately explained by stupidity?

If it is adequately explained by stupidity then you should be able to get it to display the same behavior without mentioning OpenClaw? Do you have any theory as to what stupid thing they have done to make this happen, non-maliciously? Because, Hanlon's razor doesn't just work by saying Hanlon's razor - you have to actually explain how the stupidity happened.

reply
Gross negligence is malicious.
reply
What you do shows what you value. This clearly wasn't a mistake on the part of Anthropic. Time has shown that. They made the call based on what they believe in
reply
It does not. I would be fairly magical the most favorable interpretation that makes sense is that its supposed to disconnect but also taking your money is a defect.
reply
deleted
reply