[EGreg]

Pretty sure there is nothing about “complex workflows broken down into encrypted graph segments”. Did you just make that up to add some oomph?

The actual point of the article was: recursive self improvement is scary and upredictable, you can get 99% of the benefit by doing the reliable and predictable thing instead. Did you even read the actual article? I didn’t see anything in your comment about that main thesis which is woven through — well — every paragraph.

Update: oh, I went through your recent comment history and apparently most of it is just snarky criticisms of surface level things. Okay :)

[Terr_]

> Pretty sure there is nothing about “complex workflows broken down into encrypted graph segments”.

In the quotes I noted [Architecture Page], which is the extremely prominent blue button/link on the SafeBots homepage. (To a PDF.)

It's on the slide "Scalability: Distributed Reasoning & Encrypted DAGs", number 11 with a black background.

> Did you just make that up

I choose to take this false-accusation as a positive sign that we feel the same way.

You read the text I quoted and (just like me) felt it somehow didn't make much sense... and you felt that very so strongly that you could not believe it even existed!

[EGreg]

I understand your predilection for being snarky, but you actually helped.

The front page of safebots.ai contains stuff I put up quickly 6 months ago when I was first making the site. I used Google Notebook LM to create the presentation, based on my notes, since people like “pretty designs”. And it put the word encrypted in there, which was wrong. Yes, the data (and graph) is in fact encrypted at rest, so technically it’s true, but not the main point.

I have since actually built the code, and wrote many articles around it, none of which have the word “encrypted”. Here is a good jumping off point:

https://safebots.ai/about

I didn’t expect you to ignore the entire article I linked to, go clicking around the website and into a PDF from a completely different page, go to slide 11 and post it. Suffice it to say - your conclusion is totally wrong. But I’m glad you highlighted that specific title. It is time to thoroughly redo that front page - so it is more accurate to what the project has become!