The security team at my company announced recently that OpenClaw was banned on any company device and could not be used with any company login. Later in an unrelated meeting a non technical executive said they were excited about their new Mac Mini they just bought for OpenClaw. When they were told it was banned they sort of laughed and said that obviously doesn't apply to them. No one said anything back. Why would they? This is an executive team that literally instructed the security team to weaken policies so it could be more accommodating of "this new world we live in."
Similar thing at my company. Someone /very/ high up in the org chart recently said to the entire company that OpenClaw is the future of computing, and specifically called out Moltbook as something amazing and ground breaking. There is literally no way security would ever let OpenClaw in the same room as company systems, never mind actually be installed anywhere with access to our data.
It should be noted that this exec also mentioned we should try "all the AIs", without offering up their credit card to cover the costs. I guess when your base salary is more than most people make in a life time, a few hundred bucks a month to test something doesn't even register.
MoltBook is vibe coded. It passed its own API key via client side JS, and in doing so exposed full read/write access to it’s supabase db, complete with over a million API keys.
That is groundbreaking for a product held in such high esteem, just not in a good way.
I lack the words to explain my frustration at this timeline.
Am I missing something or are both of the "we convinced someone to let the AI out" claims missing any logs of what was actually said? Why wouldn't that be shared? You can't just claim something is true because you have proof, but not share the proof.
You're not missing anything; I can't remember what his reasoning was, just that he gave one, therefore his say-so was only worth as much as your trust that he was honest.
Today though, with headlines like this one in response to events such as it quotes from people in positions such as they are?
That is why I miss the old days, when not believing Yudkowsky's statements about the AI Box experiment only meant your views were compatible with the norms of corporate IT security rules.
> 35,000 emails. 1.5M API keys. And 17,000 humans behind the not-so-autonomous AI network
Wow, this is sure a brave new world. I'd just recently heard about the project and they've already been pwned so massively. We're accelerating into a future beyond our control.
In 3 decades of IT I have never seen such executive excitement combined with recklessness, and it is appalling.
Testing new and cutting edge tech has always been a good idea, but this rampant application of it is the ultimate Running-With-Scissors meme. Risks are not being evaluated, and everything is bleeding edge.
My disgust probably comes from the instinct that the excitement is based on the allure of doing more with less, and layoffs are the only idea so many business have left.
The other camp is excited about selling more stuff because AI has been slapped onto it.
These execs are the people who previously cared about literally nothing except not looking bad to their bosses. Now they're getting all fired up about something and taking a stand and... it's this? Lol. Lmao. Etc.
Their excitement is that they have hope they can finally get rid of all those stupid humans doing the actual work. American MBA culture has spent decades hammering home an ideology of a worker as a necessary evil to make money, and that those workers are utter scum that deserve no empathy or thought, because greed is "right" and specifically that a hyper greedy system will of course produce the right outcomes naturally.
They take it as a given that they end up on top in such a system, because they've always believed themselves the most important.
They desperately want to encourage this small chance of a future finally free of the gross masses and their horrific desires like "Vacation time" and "Sick time" and "salaries". How dare those lowly trash deign to deserve any of My rightful profit.
The american system has spent about 50 years now self selecting sociopaths at every level, rewarding people who sacrifice themselves for a company to make tiny bits more profit, ensuring that every manager at a high level eats sleeps and dreams the dumb "We are a family" line whether they actually believe it or not. It should not be surprising that the thing they get hyped about is so damn stupid. They don't want what you and I want.
This is the dream of the people who responded to the establishment of basic Labor rights and Social Security with McCarthyism. These people believe, very very genuinely, that you and I are wasting Their resources.
I'm sure company policy would technically prohibit them from accessing company resources from their personal computer; or if it does allow access to company resources from their personal computer then their corporate tech policy very likely does apply to their personal computing.
If the executive bought it for a personal mac mini for personal use only, with no interaction with company resources, then the person probably wouldn't have told the story.
I mean innovation going faster than security department is not a new thing.
You have to understand that the security department operates with a fundamentaly different mindset and reality than a business executive. One is responsible for compliance and avoiding adverse events and the other for ensuring the ongoing survival and relevance of the organisation.
Specific waivers for high level members are fully expected. They also have waivers for procurements. It makes sense because they can engage their personnal responsibility for this level of decisions. They don't need the security department to act as their shield.
It's clear that something like Open Claw has the potential to be deeply disruptive so seeing leaders exploring makes sense.
A bit off topic, but are there any self hosted open source archiving servers people are using for personal usage?
I think ArchiveBox[1] is the most popular. I will give it a shot, but it's a shame they don't support URL rewriting[2], which would be annoying for me. I read a lot of blog and news articles that are split across multiple pages, and it would be nice if that article's "next page" link was a link to the next archived page instead of the original URL.
Friendly reminder that articles like this are not written by Forbes staff but are published directly by the author with little to no oversight by Forbes. Basically a blog running on the forbes.com domain. I'm sure there are many great contributors to Forbes, just saying that by lacking editorial oversight then by definition the domain it was published on is meaningless. I see people all the time saying something like, "It was on Forbes it must be true!" They wouldn't be saying that if it was published to Substack or Wordpress.com.
Expert difficulty is also recognizing that articles from "serious" publications like The New York Times can also be misleading or outright incorrect, sometimes obviously so like with some Bloomberg content the last few years.
Not all AI assisted writing is "slop," especially if, as your screenshot shows, significant portions of the article were written by a human. Drawing attention to any and all hints of AI assisted writing is not the public service announcement you think it is.
Are there specific parts of the article which are inaccurate or misleading? If so please say, it would be very interesting and add to the discussion.
I actually think AI-human collaboration is quite beneficial. I have a more fundamental issue that it's just bad writing when you use pure LLM generated text. My general feeling is "why should you expect me to spend my time reading something that you didn't care enough to spend your time writing?"
Also, most of the suggestions provided in the AI generated section are just useless. While I think this law is terrible, the suggestions provided completely contradict what the lawmakers are intending. I'll explain what I mean with some of the suggestions provided.
> Narrow the Scope to Intent, Not the Tool
This is essentially a suggestion to throw out the entire law as written. Sure, but this is meaningless advice to lawmakers.
> Drop Mandatory File Scanning
This is the same suggestion as before but rephrased.
> Exempt Open-Source and Offline Toolchains
This is asking them to create a massive loophole in their own law making it useless. Once again, essentially just asking them to throw out the entire law.
> Add safe harbor for sellers and educators who don’t modify equipment or participate in unlawful manufacture.
Two fundamentally different concepts here jammed into one idea. Do you want to add safe harbor for sellers who don't modify equipment or do you want to throw out the entire law and have it not apply to anybody who doesn't participate in unlawful manufacture? These are very different ideas, it makes no sense to treat them as one cohesive concept.
All of these are signals that not much thought went into this. If a human had used AI for ideas and writing assistance, but participated in the writing process as an active contributor, I think they would have caught things like this. I don't think they would have chosen to make multiple bullet points semantically identical. I think they would have chosen to actually cite specific aspects of the law and propose concrete solutions.
Another example, one of their suggestions is to improve the working groups to add specific members. Genuinely a fairly good idea. Having actually read the law, I would have cited the specific passage, which requires that the working group "SHALL INCLUDE EXPERTS IN ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND DIGITAL SECURITY, FIREARMS REGULATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY, AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DISCIPLINES DETERMINED BY THE DIVISION TO BE NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS PRESCRIBED HEREIN." I would question, who do they consider to be experts in additive manufacturing? Why does it seem that the working group will be far more heavily weighed towards policy experts as opposed to 3D printing experts? The article suggests that "standards will default to large vendors" yet there is no evidence here that vendors will be included at all.
I'm not understanding how this supports Tailscale's initiatives and mission. That isn't to say this isn't a useful feature for a business, but it feels like a random grasp at "build something, anything, AI related." As a paying customer I'm concerned about the company's focus being blurred when there are 3.8k open issues on their Github repo and my company has been tracking some particular issues for years without progress.
Corporate/enterprise networks have nightmarish setups for centralizing access to LLMs. This seems like an extremely natural direction for Tailscale; it is to LLM interfaces what Tailscale itself was to VPNs, a drastically simplified system that, by making policy legible, actually allows security teams to do the access control that was mostly aspirational under the status quo ante.
Seems straightforward?
I think if you don't have friends working at e.g. big banks or whatever, you might not grok just how nutty it is to try to run simple agent workflows.
>Corporate/enterprise networks have nightmarish setups for centralizing access to LLMs.
As someone who is on the other side of the fence on this and trying to keep the network secure and preventing data exfiltration there could be a good reason for this. More often than not we have folks doing all kinds of crazy things and ignore what’s in the handbook. For example we had someone who didn’t like MFA for remote access and would use Tailscale to have a remote permanent reverse proxy to their homelab to do whatever work they were doing. What’s funny is that we are not BOFH’s and would have helped them setup whatever they need had they just sent us an email or opened a ticket.
The whole Tailscale ethos is exactly what you're talking about:
* Security/risk teams have coherent, sensible goals for managing access
* The technology stack they've landed on makes those goals performative; so complicated that they can't even express their most important goals, so annoying that users route around it
* What's needed is a radically simplified approach that centers end-user experience (particularly around onboarding).
I'm not saying banks are crazy to want to control LLM usage (I'm not bullish on it long-term either, but I see the issue), just that the systems I've talked to friends about them using today are batshit, ranging from "foundation lab shmoundation lab we'll just do our own models" to "OK you can operate in 2025 but only in a Citrix terminal".
Yeah I think it's better to think of Tailscale as an access control company which is utilizing networks as the utility vector, not a network utility company that also has access controls.
Another reason they could have built this was by listening to their users. I do believe lots of people are spinning up agents in their workplaces, and managing yet another set of api keys is probably annoying for Tailscale's customers. This feels like a great solution to me.
Pressure to service larger customers to capture higher revenues is inevitable for Tailscale given the scale of VC funding, valuation, and operating costs involved.
Trying to be all things to all people will inevitably dilute focus, and it’s understandable that OP might be looking at this sub-product and wondering where the value is for their use cases.
They’re probably not the only ones questioning whether they’re still part of Tailscale’s core ICP (ideal customer profile), either.
yes this inevitably happens to companies that can't grow infinitely, you pivot to enterprise because you can sell to one person that has the equivalent spend of thousands... it really is unfortunate for the individuals
I have a secret manager, why would I want tails ale involved in the management of secrets, they are a networking company
Tails ale is not a company I see being involved in my core AI ops. I don't need their visibility tools, I already have LGTM.
Tailscale should focus on their core competency, not chase the gilded Ai hype cycle. I have sufficient complaints about their core product that this effort is a red flag for me. To do this now, instead of years ago, shows how behind the times they are
They're not a networking company, they're an access control company. Their original product is based around networking, and now this new one is based around AI access and metrics.
This product isn't about managing and distributing API keys, it's about managing and distributing access to these services throughout the org. In fact, it's more about being able to avoid managing and distributing API keys, which is IMHO even better.
The first I heard of them was they were the company around WireGuard, a networking technology.
We recently brought them into the stack to manage said access, it has been painful, aiui their configuration is not intuitive (not the one working on it). I suspect any further expansion will be a big ask after the dismal experience. I certainly don't trust them to manage my secrets and access afterwards. I haven't even found an enjoyable DX talking point in either my personal or professional usage either
> They're not a networking company, they're an access control company.
This is like Ripping saying they are not an HR company, they are an access control company. I got into this very argument with them on a sales call looking for a payroll provider. They wanted to manage the keys to everything, I don't trust them to safely guard access to my cloud projects, nor is it something I even want my HR/payroll company even considering doing. This new product sounds like TailScale was the keys to the kingdom and I sure as hell am not giving it to them after the disappointing rollout of their established networking technology
Not to mention that storing the API keys on a developer machine (or distributing them to a developer machine) is the first step towards a developer's API keys getting leaked or exfiltrated. With this approach, the developer never has the API key on their machine at all (and you don't have to rotate or invalidate the key when they leave).
There's a set of common needs across these gateways, and everyone is building their own proxies and reinventing the wheel, which just feels unnecessary.
~All of our customers at Oso (the launch partner in the article) have been asking us how to get a handle on this stuff...bc their CEO/board/whatever is asking them. So to us it was a no-brainer. (We're also Tailscale customers.)
I realised I wasn't Tailscale's target customer when I reported a 100% reproducible iOS bug/regression over a year ago. It was confirmed, logged, and forgotten.
This seems quite useful to me, especially for a larger org.
If your dev's are working on LLM features, they'll need access to the OpenAI APIs. So are you just gonna give all of them a key? the same key?
No idea how this is solved at the moment, so seems like a smart step
There's actually a mass acquisition game going on right now in this space. Companies want to use genAI, but don't necessarily want to hire people to run their own models in-house. It may not be obvious to startup-y employees, but keeping data in-house is huge for big companies. LLM traffic is a lot different from established traffic that firewalls have been built up for. You can't block data leaks as easily as shutting down access to google drive. When you can't trust all of your employees, genAI presents a lot of new attack vectors.
> As a paying customer I'm concerned about the company's focus being blurred when there are 3.8k open issues on their Github repo and my company has been tracking some particular issues for years without progress.
I feel exactly the same way.
So many open issues, the majority thoroughly deserving of a resolution.
I would rather they get their house in order on the core product first before rushing out shiny new things .... because the shiny new alpha/beta things will only exponentially increase the number of open issues.
I like tailscale itself but a lot of basic stuff (such as dynamic routing) or ephemeral node auth are very lacking, wish they would concentrate more on their core product we all like and want to see improve
A huge chunk of the open issues are feature requests with many of those already being implemented years ago but not yet marked closed. And a vast majority of the bugs are repeats, they clearly need someone to clean up their issue tracker.
> my company has been tracking some particular issues for years without progress
Sounds like something your Account Manager or similar would need to work through. Development roadmaps are often driven by the largest, or loudest customers.
There are many examples of edit wars between people fighting political battles, but I don’t think your link is one of them. I think how he treated his dog was cruel and I believe how he responded by lying and gaslighting his audience was disgusting, but that doesn’t mean it belongs on Wikipedia. In your link I don’t see Hasan white knights protecting their master from bad publicity, I see Hasan haters trying to bludgeon the change into the article by ignoring any objection and just reverting edits. It was frustrating to read people bringing up the same Forbes article and not reading the reason why it wasn’t suitable. Again, I dislike Hasan in general and especially for this, but if this was so important then why hasn’t any major news outlet written about it? You may disagree about what does and doesn’t belong on Wikipedia, and I have my own objections, but I truly don’t believe the rules were designed by a left leaning cabal to make their favorite Twitch streamer avoid egg on their face.
I appreciate your reasoned comment and think that it's thoughtful, but I respectfully disagree with some of your claims.
> In your link I don’t see Hasan white knights protecting their master from bad publicity
Yes, because it's not overt. Nobody says that when they're doing it. What's happening is claiming that the story is not notable so it can be removed because it's bad publicity for him:
> This is a nothing story and not encyclopedic.
> it seems to be "drama" amongst the terminally online
Then it turns out that it's notable because some sources are reporting it, but the editors make every effort to discount all of those sources:
> The Australian is noted as a center-right newssheet. I think there has been no rfc on it, but it seems an opinionated source.
> WP:NEWSWEEK has been noted to have had some quality decline according to RSP.
> WP:DEXERTO states not to use it for BLP and that its very tabloidy.
> WP:DAILYDOT also states its highly biased and opinionated. It seems rather tabloidy as well.
> See WP:TIMESOFINDIA but its not reliable enough for this
...and this is used as a reason to not even put a single-paragraph summary at the end of his article, despite the fact that the event is extremely notable as part of his career, and is exactly the information that someone reading the Wikipedia page would want to know.
> I see Hasan haters trying to bludgeon the change into the article by ignoring any objection and just reverting edits.
Yes, I see some of those people too. But, in response, the editors are reverting the changes and locking out the topic. An impartial editor concerned about the truth and curating a useful encyclopedia would not do that - they'd create new changes to remove specifically only the offending unsourced material and rewrite sourced material to be neutral.
> if this was so important then why hasn’t any major news outlet written about it
Along with the other sources listed in the talk page that the editors did their best to discount, The Guardian wrote about it - that certainly counts as a "major news outlet".
Nobody wants a ton of drama on Wikipedia, but this clearly surpasses the threshold of "drama" given that (1) it's still being discussed months afterwards (2) it has transcended the cultural circles around Hasan (which is the main metric for "drama") and (3) it's received reporting from many news outlets, including large and reliable ones like The Guardian.
I want to make sure I understand -- In The Guardian article you linked, the author is making no claim about what happened to Kaya, he is only giving Hasan's statement about the incident. The claim presented in the article essentially boils down to: Kaya yelped while Hasan was reaching for something unrelated and that it's a "conspiracy theory" to think that Hasan uses a shock collar as he claims he doesn't. You're saying you're in favor of the Wikipedia article being updated to say this?
Not the person you're replying to, but I wonder what the true unemployment rate is when you exclude people who are doing gig work temporarily after they have been laid off from their career job.
>but I wonder what the true unemployment rate is when you exclude people who are doing gig work temporarily after they have been laid off from their career job.
That would presumably show up in personal/household income figures, but everything looks normal:
reply