I already did this in great detail, if you remember... still no valid answer to that. I said I did not want to feed the trolls, but as long as you deny valid concerns and think that enough "positive" posts will cover those up, I will still post.
You did write it in detail, and it got answered with code, not a bunch of BS on here. The payload claim was answered with the lean facade, about 555 tokens, proven against a 12B local model with the numbers posted in this thread. The RRD critique was not denied, it was conceded and fixed the same day, and you were credited for it. That is two of your concerns turned into shipped commits. An answer you reject is still an answer. "Still no valid answer" only means something if you name the claim.
So name it: which single point from that post do you believe still stands against the current release? It gets a technical answer or a fix. You have seen that happen before, to you specifically. Nobody is covering concerns with positive posts. I don't control anyone here on this public thread, and an upvote never closed a defect. Commits close defects, and the commit history is public, so you' can confirm or deny everything I'm fixing and not. RIGHT? yeah..
Besides: There is something way off with arguments about "people who think autonomous driving is inherently more dangerous than humans driving". The fundamental difference is that when an AI kills people, neither the machine itself nor its inventors have to fear personal retribution, much unlike human drivers. And just because nobody is going to pay the personal price for AI errors, the inhibition barriers break away.
I'm not saying that AI should be trusted, I'm saying the opposite and have built a system, using GOVERNANCE which is exactly what all the BIG TECH HOUSES are converging on. When an AI errs, no one fears retribution, so the inhibition barrier breaks away. That is exactly the premise Proximo is built on.
Follow the design of Proximo with your premise in mind. The AI cannot be the accountable actor, it is never allowed to. A mutation does not execute on the model's say so, it comes back as a plan. Out of the box the token is read-only. Nothing CAN mutate until a human mints the write scope, and an AI can't mint Proxmox tokens. That's out of its reach at the RBAC level, not because my code promises to behave. Want per-change human sign-off on top of that? CONSENT ships in the box and ships OFF, on purpose: a consent pillar the tool raised for itself would be a pillar the agent could lower for itself. You raise it, in a directory only you can write, or you admit you don't have it. The README says all of this in plain text. Go read it.
The permissions envelope is set by a person, enforced by construction, and every action lands in an audit log with an undo path where the platform allows one. The inhibition barrier you say breaks away is reinstated mechanically: there is always a named human who armed the system inside a scope they chose, and a record of what ran.
Accountability does not evaporate, it is pinned to a person on purpose.
And compare it against the real alternative, because it is not "no AI touches Proxmox." People are already pasting shell commands from chatbots into root shells, no plan, no scope, no record. That is the world your argument condemns, and I condemn it with you. A governance layer exists to put the human and the record back between the model and the machine.
You wrote the case for it in this thread, I was already building it, you've failed to see it that way.
Just imagine an engineer appearing before a C-level board, presenting the newest results of a $100M quality assurance test for his autonomous driving system, which now shows 99.9% favorable results. Then, the CEO asks: "That is still 1 accident in a thousand rides. What would it cost to bring the error rate down another order of magnitude?" Anyone who has actually studied this knows about the diminishing marginal utility. The answer is not $1B, but likely much more. Faced with that answer, guess what the company will do? Right — they will stop research at the exact point where the corporate insurance costs become cheaper than further development. Actually, that attaches a price tag to human lives
I was born in the 70's and to use this analogy is a good one, especially when It's not the case here, its just your perception, so let's play. The auto industry was putting the cost of lives on paper in the 1970s; the Pinto, hehe, yeah that car, the memo is the receipt. Aviation, pharma, construction all run on an acceptable-risk numbers. Human-driven cars kill about forty thousand people a year in the US and we accepted that price for well over a century. So "that attaches a price tag to human lives" is not describing AI. It's the cost of industrial engineering and our economics, and the inhibition barrier there was never personal retribution, It's regulation, liability, and discipline.
Your argument is a case against unaccountable corporate automation at scale, and on that we can agree, Lives are more important than machine/AI.
Now, let's walk this all the way back down to this thread and what it's all about. Proximo has no board, no economists , and no insurance calculations between you and the code. The blast radius is the op's own boxes, inside a token scope the operator minted, with a ledger the op holds. The person who assumes the risks is the person who decides the errors budget, with the QA in front of them: the source, the suite, the CI, and the incident history are all public.
This morning our own release pipeline went red, and the diagnosis, the fix, the independent review of the fix, and the green re-verification are sitting on the public Actions tab right now, timestamped. That is the opposite of a company stopping QA where insurance gets cheaper.
By your own moral logic, risk decisions belong with whoever pays the price when it goes wrong. A local, open, scoped, audited tool puts the decision exactly there. The thing your argument condemns is a different product, sold by people who do not show you their failures.
For someone admitting he needs to use Claude to code this for lack of programming know-how, it is a little steep to suggest that people who think that even the idea is bad do not "technically understand". I do not think that I do not know what's going on — not in the slightest.
Look at you. The challenge on the table was about the code. Your answer is about me. CODE DON'T KNOW WHO WROTE IT. The suite passes or it don't. The audit chain breaks at the edited line or it dont. The wheel installs on both SDK majors or it don't. All of it is public, and none of it cares about my biology/biography or yours.
The code is the argument. Judging code by its author's credentials is the one standard this forum would never accept pointed at itself and yet here y'all are.
You've read the code. Your RRD report got a shipped fix inside a day with your name in the changelog. So you already know the difference between code nobody read and code you personally read and corrected.
"Vibe coded" is a word for the first kind, and you know it.
Yes, Claude writes code here. I said so in this thread myself at the very beginning. It is not a confession, it is the point. The bet is not "trust the AI." The bet is that AI-written code under public verification, adversarial review, and a signed audit trail meets a HIGHER standard of proof than most hand-written code ever faces, because every claim about it is checkable by strangers.
You are one of the strangers. The repo is open. You found one defect and it got fixed same-day. Find the next one.
Builder of
Proximo - The Proxmox MCP you can hand the keys — VE + Backup Server + Mail Gateway + Datacenter Manager on one audited trust core (plan · prove · undo · diagnose). MCP + A2A + API
