Trust is not objective. It's built between parties over time by looking at actions and the results of those actions. In other words, it's entirely subjective based on what's happened between the parties involved. You haven't built that trust with AI agents, or the agents have done things to lose that trust (assuming you've tried), but others have. You can't just dismiss their experience as invalid compared to your own.
Ask any SOTA AI this question: "Two fathers and two sons sum to how many people?" and then tell me if you still think they can replace anything at all.
What answer do you expect here? There's four people referenced in the sentence.
There's more implied because of Mothers, but if you're including transient dependencies, where do we stop?
It can also be 3 people, as one person can be a father and a son at the same time. If you allow non-mentioned people to be included in the attribute (i.e. the sons of the fathers are not part of the 2) it could also be 2 people, as long as they are fathers.
If you force it to use chain-of-thought: "Two fathers and two sons sum to how many people? Enumerate all the sets of solutions"
"Assuming the group consists only of “the two fathers and the two sons” (i.e., every person in the group is counted as a father and/or a son), the total number of distinct people can only be 3 or 4.
Reason: you are taking the union of a set of 2 fathers and a set of 2 sons. The union size is 2+2−overlap, so it is 4 if there’s no overlap and 3 if exactly one person is both a father and a son. (It cannot be 2 in any ordinary family tree.)"
Here it clearly states its assumption (finite set of people that excludes non-mentioned people, etc.)
Any number between 2 and 4 is valid, so it's a really poor test, the machine cna never be wrong. Heck, maybe even 1 if we're talking someone schizophrenic. I got to wonder which answer YOU wanted to hear. Are you Jekyl or Hide?
But as of now you're just wide open for abuse? Okay
Resend uses SES since it's almost impossible to get private IP mail to hit the inbox through ProofPoint filters. Looks like you have no idea about any of this. You don't even have knowledge of email reputation, much less a plan. Have you heard of Senderscore? You will have all zeros. Saying "SPF DKIM DMARC" is wild - that's a checklist from 15 years ago.
I think we’re aligned on the hard parts here, so let me be precise.
We’re not wide open for abuse nor are we bypassing the hard parts of email reputation. Quite the opposite. We also utilize SES's infrastructure and monitor reputation continuously, but we don’t assume SPF/DKIM/DMARC are sufficient on their own. They’re basics we have implemented, not the entire strategy.
You are correct private IPs per customer make sense once you’re sending meaningful volume (on the order of ~10k+/day per IP). But its inaccurate to say we are sending from a single private IP. IP pools are typically segmented by reputation and traffic profile for customers.
Reputation here is earned at multiple layers: per-IP, per-domain, per-inbox, and over time. We rate-limit, isolate, or revoke bad actors without poisoning unrelated senders. Hopefully this makes sense.
This bubble is going to crash so much harder than any other bubble in history. It's almost impossible to overstate the level of hype. LLMs are functionally useless in any context. It's a total and absolute scam.
reply