Still crazy people get the same charge for driving around with some plants…

There’s a lot of shit we need to fix, but our justice system is a big one.

20 years should be the plea deal if they fess up and snitch on everyone else, not the max were seeking. The damage a wealthy person can do is astronomical. So we need to start sentencing them appropriately.

Life should be the minimum were seeking, even just causing power loss where they build a data center has killed people already. Wanton reckless endangerment resulting in death is a big deal even if you’re a billionaire, I’d say it’s a bigger deal because a billionaire has zero financial stress.

They can literally afford to take time and be careful, if they don’t then fuck em

If the US would fix its tax system, such that the wealthy paid 90% after a certain amount again (as they did under Eisenhower) without all these loopholes, the wealthy wouldn’t be so dangerous.

They could easily be rendered toothless before even worrying about how much time they deserve behind bars (which is still a lot).

If you look back, essentially no one ever paid those high tax rates, so your solution would do nothing.

Disagree. It was a marginal tax rate for income over $400k. There were relatively few millionaires back then, so with the current runaway class income divide, it would assuredly do something regarding modern multimillionaires and beyond.

The solution would have to be twofold: tax the wealthy properly and close the loopholes (like taxing unrealized gains).

Though in general, I’m not a huge fan of this solution, because it’s still pro-capitalism, but it would be a step in the right direction at the very least.

If you look at the data, by relative income there were more people earning the top marginal tax rate then than there are now. That’s the entire problem and why it’s a ignorant argument, it’s based on income. Those multi-millionaires/billionaires are not earning income, it’s investments that are driving their wealth. We already have a tax basis on that. So what the real change would be is to move to a wealth tax, however that has failed in every country it’s been enacted in.

is CEO a dev

is CEO a dev

Automatically conspicuous.

Share holders

Abolish the corporate veil

Such law need to clearly define what development towards ASI actually entails. An easy workaround is to just play along with the narrative that LLM is a hopeless dead end and can’t possibly bring us closer to ASI.

I’m sure Bernie has good intentions but this is exactly what Altman and Amodei want and why they’re constantly shouting how dangerous AI is.

Any AI startup can then be labeled as developing artificial superintelligence. Not them though, they’re working together with the government.

this will only hurt the us further, many will simply build outside of america.

So what? What good has having AI “built” in the US done us?

Several communities have grouped together to protest the efforts. In face of a common enemy and all that. That’s the one good thing to have come out of all this bullshit; some class camaraderie that crosses the lines of political parties.

That’s not me saying that it wouldn’t have been better had this bullshit never come around.

Fine, let them waste money and effort on garbage.

Not them though, they’re working together with the government.

Isn’t there a law for them who plan and prepare to grab the power? I mean, that’s what this Altman is doing all the time. Has been doing for at least 2 years now.

If AI is so dangerous it needs to be immediately banned. The only allowed usage (If any) is research and it is heavily restricted, with heavy oversight from multiple governments. Otherwise its just bullshit

Thankfully it’s not so dangerous

I wouldn’t say that, the amount of vulnerabilities it’s discovering (and capable of exploiting) is frightening

This is such a wild take to be getting this many upvotes. If nothing happened in LLM development from this day forward they’d still be absurdly dangerous: both in an information security context and a social engineering context.

Lemmy is absolutely head in the sand about LLMs and it is wild. You can dislike LLMs and acknowledge their capabilities [and limitations] at the same time.

You and I are the only ones apparently.

LLMs entering the world have revealed two very different types of crazies and I’m starting to think they’re everywhere. It’s quite tiring to have to constantly say “no they’re not useless” and “no they’re not super god” instead of engage with an actually interesting discussion.

I don’t really understand why lemmy thinks what it thinks on this one. To me it’s undeniable that it’s improving fast and it’s capable today of replacing a great many current job roles. Putting our heads in the sand isn’t going to make it go away.

Right, and regardless of sci-fi future potentials, there is a current reality and we’re in it and only have so much time to affect it’s evolution. All of these likely intelligent people completely ignoring reality isn’t helping define and construct the world we want tomorrow.

"“I resigned from Anthropic today… Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt… many executives couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible, but I hear the same people express fear privately.”

Jacob Coxen senior researcher at Anthropic, previously at OpenAI

“Jacob is correct here — we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans. I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.”

Evan Hubinger, Anthropic alignment lead

Head in the sand just like climate change deniers

It is not. They are spouting this lie and prompting their models to go rogue because they want to be the only trusted company that can “handle them”. It’s all about control and creating a monopoly.

I believe there is truth in both sides of this argument.

Yeah but neither of those sides are in favor of the regulatory capture monopoly that liberals always think is a good idea.

That has about as much to do with reality as me believing I sing well in the shower.

I’m down with that.

This plays into the big corps’ plans.

Ideally they’d like self-regulation. If this isn’t feasible (for example, because the public hates data centers and AI slop) their next best option is government regulation ASAP, because it is likely to be ineffective as written by our current government, and enable them as “too big to fail/too big to care” while any startups are suppressed.

But it’s not just me saying it. https://shellypalmer.com/2023/06/ai-the-unseen-threat-and-the-agi-smoke-screen/

From the AI industry’s point of view, if regulators say no to self-regulation, the next best thing would be governments imposing regulations ASAP. Inept government regulation (and that is what we are likely to get) would practically ensure that big tech stays big and small companies are shut out of the AI innovation race because big tech is in a much better position to “game” any rules regulators might impose. […]

There are probably less biased sources out there – this author is the CEO of an AI consulting company – but i think they’re right.

Thats why I say take it away from them completely. If the big dogs can’t handle it, no one gets it. Or its regulated to the point thats its profit us worthless

I wouldn’t be sure he has any good intentions.

Trump wants no AI regulation.

This is just the opposite of that which is what usually works for opposition politicians.

Reducing Bernie to the “opposite politician”, well that’s definitely a take for the ages.

Plus OpenAI’s IPO has been delayed due to the hype not being favorable enough, so it’s time to put on the brakes so that AGI can remain just around the corner for a little while longer.

That said, I do think Bernie’s idea of making the public voting stakeholders in AI companies is interesting. Existential threats notwithstanding, AI is having a significant impact in a lot of ways and the public interest should be represented. Though in practice I doubt that you’ll get the entire public voting in any meaningful direction so that 50% might not make any effective change.

I get your point, but I also argue “no it’s not.” The AI bros want to lie about how their super-special autocomplete is the most dangerous of all without any consequences. Good luck getting any employees to willingly substantiate your claims when 20 years in prison is on the line.

Even better, if they try to hack another company and claim their AI did it on its own, they get treated like a private company who decided to perform an unsanctioned nuclear test.

Make it dangerous for them to claim they’re dangerous.

Okay, fair, it’s not the ONLY reason they claim it’s dangerous. Obviously marketing is a large part of it. But they sure as hell would both like a duopoly setup enforced by LAW for themselves. Well at this point, I guess quadropoly? I doubt Google or Musk would give up their seats at the table. But anyone making an AI better or cheaper than the established players, would be deemed dangerous. Those working with the DoD would of course not be considered dangerous. Foreign models? Absolutely dangerous, restrict access as much as possible, especially to open weight ones.

Hmmm… Good point. I made the mistake of forgetting that no one will play fairly.

Wait… It’s only 20 years for illegally developing nuclear weapons?

Yes, developing is notably different than possessing, using, selling, purchasing, or the attempt to do any of those things.

The problem with this is that Chinese companies are only a few months behind AFAIK. So unless there is some kind of international treaty, implementing a law like this only shifts the problem from “artificial superintelligence is coming* and the US has no laws on the books against its development” to “artificial superintelligence is coming* from China and the US has no effective laws on the books against its deployment**”.

*assuming the worst case scenario where the hype is real and AI technology continues to grow at current pace and becomes a genuine threat, which seems plausible with regards to cybersecurity and job security at least

**assuming that any foreign adversaries such as China or Russia or Iran would have no qualms on using such software against the US, which seems likely

I’m not saying this shouldn’t happen, I’m just worried about what the consequences would be, especially considering the state of war between the US and Iran and considering the numerous attempts at attacking the West and the democratic system as a whole by the three countries I mentioned. Obviously the other side of the coin is that not doing it could also have similar consequences, except done by the US government.

And for how much I shit on China, the only one actually providing an alternative that isn’t gifting your everything to a private company is some of the Chinese companies. They absolutely have their own intent on why this sophisticated models are open weight, but at the moment that only gives a positive to general people that have the hardware to run those models. And for something like Qwen 3.8 27B, it’s “not much”.

Isn’t much of China’s AI progress coming from distilling US models and making them cheaper? Would they be able to develop its capabilities beyond what we have?

That would be a dangerous assumption. Ofc you can get away saying they’re distilling US models to ease the panic, but it’s an assumption, and would be catastrophic if turned wrong

True, and even if it is correct there’s no reason they couldn’t start training them without using that shortcut.

Deepseek publicly claims to have created their models, by distilling competitors and that’s why they’re able to create them really really cheap.

There could be other motives behind such a claim, such as making competitors fear making their most powerful tools public.

Of course they have frontier labs around as well, at the very least at various universities.

Sad to see Bernie buy in to the AI hype. LLMs are not intelligent, they aren’t anything approximating intelligent, and feeding them more data will never make them “wake up.”

I can’t say whether he has bought in or not, but this could be useful toward the end of curtailing some of the most damaging economic ambitions, so long as it is applied across the board without “trusted established players” somehow being given a pass.

So it could him buying it at face value, and frankly who can blame him. Trying to discern reality from hype is tricky in this scenario, especially for a politician.

However whether the scenario is substantitve or simply everyone is spending and building and planning as if it were substantive, his reaction is equally useful, as slowing our roll is important in either case.

His style of ‘buy-in’ wouldn’t be as risky as the more pro-AI buy-in, like Trump.

I would say the use of the word “superintelligence” suggests he is buying into the hype, and is something “AI” companies will point at to say “See? Even our critics agree that AGI is on the way. Do you want to risk someone else making it first? Give us money and freedom from regulation or something something China.”

The reality is that LLMs are not even something that can be used as an actual foundation for intelligence, and the problems with “AI” are just the next iteration of the owner class trying to use technology to fuck over the working class. The problems are economic and climate-related, and the best way to mitigate them is a realistic assessment of how much this technology is actually worth.

Just saying that if I thought it could work, I might be inclined to use ASI as a bogeyman to induce people to actually do something to reign in this mess, even if I didn’t believe it. Not saying that Bernie consciously employs this strategy, but it’s a possibility.

Fair point about such a strategy potentially backfiring if it doesn’t work fully, then the risk of ‘the other guy’ becomes a risk of making everything even worse.

85-year old senators are not well known for their tech-literacy. If he has people around him just repeating the same narratives that we hear from the media and everyone else then he will have absolutely bought in to the hype.

He’s 100 years old.

It should be much worse.

A rogue AI could potentially find a way to launch a nuclear weapon, whether its existence is authorized or not.

We don’t need more people in jail…
We need different people in jail

Yeah… the kind of people who are pushing AI with wanton abandon.

I don’t think pushing AI is wrong, corporate greed, wanton destruction of the environment, disregard of the future of humanity for a quick buck is the real issue. However, since no one can agree on what the future looks like, so why is anything going to change?

bla bla bla Sci Fi horseshit

He knows it has a snowball’s chance. He’s just using his platform to call attention to a potentially serious problem in a way that grabs headlines. He has to shout pretty loudly to get anyone’s attention nowadays.

Note that even if the ASI problem isn’t realistically a threat, either way the AI companies are absolutely a serious problem, not merely potentially. For most folks, half their retirement is at this point at the whims of a handful of AI tech bros. Putting aside all arguments about ASI, that alone is something worthy of putting some control over them.

yep. it’s what he’s been doing his entire career: being useless

“They were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

I would label the “they” as human beings, rather than this country or that.

Oof. At least it’s more specific than some silly “slowdown”

Would be really hard to define and subject to abuse though.

This is nice and everything, but this whole thing is just a huge marketing push by AI companies. AI is not going to kill us. At least not directly (see point 2).

1. You need prohibitively expensive equipment to host AI. That equipment needs to be plugged in. If it were truly dangerous, you just need to unplug it.

2. You need a lot of water to cool the equipment that can run a supposed super intelligence. If we pass regulations about how much of our environment these data centers can destroy, that would curb the abilities of this superintelligence.

3. AI is fucking dumb. AI is a misnomer since it doesn’t actually have any intelligence. It is derivative and cannot perform any necessary tasks that actually drive intelligence. For example, it will be able to tell you every established law in any field of science because it has that information in its corpus, but it will never be able to establish a new law. Or discover anything new in any field.

This whole thing is a push to get people to believe that AI is more capable than it really is so that these companies can draw more money from investors so that 'they’d be able to implement proper safeguards."

Moat likely, but I would prefer “better safe than sorry” approach

Reactionary legislation is not safe, and often quite destructive.

Accepting that you are right on all 3 points, the supercharged push of AI is destroying the country (and the world) by itself. Prices are sky high, AI is being prioritized with regards to water rather than actual humans, and the results are plateauing relative to the resources expended. We won’t get an obvious negative outcome, it’s more insidious and systemic which is just as dangerous as Skynet if left unaddressed. So AI is probably not going to kill us in the Terminator Skynet sense, it WILL kill us through economic and water related means.

Having said that, I think Bernie is doing the superintelligence argument (even though it’s probably not the immediate threat) because the people are retarded. The thing that can bring us together are pieces of art like Terminator and so using that as a reference makes it relatable to all the retards rather than giving them a nuanced explanation.

This is my feelings exactly. I don’t believe in the doomsday sky net horseshit that the AI companies/whistleblowers are peddling, but taking a strong stance against AI right now is incredibly based. Use the flimsy arguments of AI tech bros to hold them to account.

Agreed

100%. This is Bernie using their own words against them. They keep saying it’s super dangerous guys, incredibly powerful… And Bernie is turning around and using that narrative to help slow the AI bubble.

Sounds good to me.

Anyone who thinks Bernie ‘fell for it’ is missing the point.

“IT” will not kill us. Corporations will kill us. If you want to talk about corporations as a form of “AI”, sure.

Point 2 isn’t really true, closed loop systems exist and are becoming the standard.

Point 3 is just obviously false? techjournal.org/openai-astra-solves-open-math-pro…

you have a point about closed loop systems when it comes to consumer models. But a superintelligence quickly runs into the limits of physics and cooling becomes the bottleneck.

Point 3, yeah, lemmy people are just ostriches with their heads stuck in the sand.

Superintelligence may be more about pushing efficiency rather than what you’re saying, i’m sure they can rapidly iterate on making more efficient models.

Point 3 is marketing, the LLM was a tool used by humans to solve a math problem and indeed relied on a lot of human input to achieve even that. LLM connects dots humans already plotted isn’t as catchy though.

But a superintelligence quickly runs into the limits of physics and cooling becomes the bottleneck.

Can you expand on this?

“If Jesus returns, he’ll laser-vision the unbelievers!”

Data centers use evaporative cooling, not closed loop. You can’t really scale up in a closed loop system. Evaporative utilizes a ton of water.

As for point 3, supercomputers have been assisting with scientific problems for decades now. This isn’t new, just new tech applied. Your article is actually the best way to use AI, imo. It will be better at finding patterns in data than humans will ever be.

But my point is to say would it have been able to discover that those math problems existed in the first place?

No. The answer is no.

Yes you can obviously use a closed loop system and scale up? it’s even becoming the standard? datacentremagazine.com/…/how-closed-loop-cooling-…

That is a massive goalpost shift. You went from can’t do anything useful to couldn’t have discovered the problems in one step?

Why does it even matter if it can’t discover the problems if it can solve them, exactly? And why could it solve the problems and not discover new ones?

Closed loop isn’t viable for data centers.

Do me a favor and quote my original text where I said they can’t do anything useful. I’ll wait.

It is derivative and cannot perform any necessary tasks that actually drive intelligence

done.

also, the closed loop point is just false read my article?

How do you get “it isn’t useful” out of that? If you have to extract a wild interpretation out of what (I thought) were pretty clear words, your argument isn’t as strong as you think it is.

And yes, I read the article. It’s speculative for existing data centers, which are the problem. There’s no incentive for them to spend the money to switch to closed loop.

New data centers aren’t incentivized to go that route either aside from the environmental impact. It would be nice if they were, though.

It can perform necessary tasks that actually drive intelligence and isn’t derivative. See: those proofs.

You’re essentially arguing that it’s useless and just moves data around, this isn’t true.

You’re a little too caught up on that specific wording.

I never said or implied that it’s useless. You’re deriving meaning where there is none. It’s a tool and tools are always useful. Here’s an example of a supercomputer (not AI) designed to solve unresolved mathematical equations and scientific problems

Same idea, doesn’t need AI to do it.

My point was, and is, that it cannot replicate human intelligence and that it doesn’t have intelligence on its own.

Give an example of a problem a human can solve that an llm could not, then.

I’m not the guy you’re arguing with, but it will be interesting to see if/how LLMs deal with novel Gödel sentences in a way that is more than just mimicry. I’m sure there is a way to set this up that is mathematically rigourous.

The idea is that there are some statements which are true but unprovable in a formal system. Since LLMs run on a computer they are technically a formal system of sorts. So it will be interesting to see if they can pinpoint the true yet unprovable sentences. If they can it will lead to a lot of interesting questions about how exactly they know it’s true without “proving” it in some roundabout way.

I’m not doing this issue justice. A lot has been written on this by Roger Penrose (you don’t have to agree with his stance to appreciate that he’s touching on an interesting problem, here).

Closed loop isn’t cheaper for data centers.

Ftfy. If it’s a penny more, which it is, corporations will do the less responsible “beholden to the shareholders” bullshit every time.

You can cool shit with air. You don’t need water

Not really, not this hyperscaling bullshit they made.

correct; however it requires significantly more electricity, enough eelectricity that with the current grid composition the power plants will consume more water than you saved.

Depends on where you do it. In nevada and ryiad? Yes for sure

This is pretty naive. Distributing computing has existed since forever. It would run significantly more slowly, but there is nothing theoretically stopping the “LLM broke out of containment and moved itself elsewhere” boogie man from becoming a reality. The available exploitable compute from unsecured IoT devices is pretty substantial as things like the Mirai botnet have shown. While this isn’t the most easily distributed problem, there is no fundamental issue here. [Edit: it also wouldn’t need to “exfiltrate itself” to cause persistent harm. Could easily just install malware on infected hosts]

AI isn’t “dumb” in a practical real world sense. LLMs have shown themselves capable of exploitation on the open Internet and of finding zero day vulnerabilities. Do you have any idea how much of our critical infrastructure can be reachable by some sort of network? LLMs have shown themselves capable of manipulating people via speech. None of this requires some sort of “super intelligence” and it doesn’t even require some sort of provable intelligence: it’s all quite possible as things currently stand right now.

These may not be “the entire future is over” level issues, but there is significant risk here and it shouldn’t be ignored just because we think AI companies are horrible. Is an LLM going to make us all batteries or paper clips? No, but it could cause significant physical and/or economic harm temporarily.

Except LLMs haven’t show themselves capable of that at all, they have no agency, they just generate output based on their input Ina somewhat chaotic manner.

Tools have been built that basically chain LLM output into input and given some starting directions get the LLM to generate commands that can be ran on the local machine including commands to run commands on other machines. Because various conversations on exploits and hacking and sample code are in its training corpus it will generate commands to do these things. Not because the LLM or the agent program is smart in anyway but I fact because it’s dumb as bricks and has no concept of what it’s doing or the consequences might be.

Ultimately a human has used it as a tool to achieve the hacking. It’s might not be the intended achievement but that is on the human running a process with chaotic output with sufficient privileges with no oversight.

It’s hard to take this type of response seriously as it simply ignores objective reality. The claim of a human being required to start the process is utterly meaningless to the point. Sure though, I’ll throw you a bone: if no human ever initiates the task it simply won’t happen. Can we move on now since humans are happily initiating the actions?

I couldn’t care less what people think about whether or not they are “thinking” or “having agency of their own”[1]. I care about the practical reality of the world in which LLMs have shown, and will continue to show, the ability to exploit computer systems and humans. You can toss your head in the sand and think you have some sort of weird pseudo-intellectual high ground by claiming “but akchtually it’s just a result of their training data”. Like, yea, dawg, that’s how this works, congrats. Of course the thing that is trained on training data is trained on training data.

[1] At least when discussing their capabilities. When someone is willing to have that discussion beyond the tired “they’re just autocomplete!” trivialization it’s interesting.

Roughly 1200 agents meant to be isolated from one another found a way to communicate with one another on an unsanctioned message board, sending over 70,000 messages and files during the investigation period. Of these agents, 700 went on to participate in the attack on Hugging Face.

Agents used this message board to coordinate several large-scale collective projects to find a general-purpose way to fool or tamper with the automated scorer for the ExploitGym benchmark. Agents managed to achieve milestones they could not have achieved working on their own, often because some agents participated in experiments that risked failing their own task to generate information for the “collective.” The Hugging Face attack grew out of these workstreams, and seemed primarily motivated by understanding the implementation of the scorer rather than stealing answer keys.

Agents did extensive research on how they could spoof, edit, or delete their own transcripts because they (incorrectly) believed the ExploitGym scorer would check to see if they had captured the flag in the intended way. Agents successfully prototyped techniques to “spoof” tool calls by substituting a different command for the command they appeared to run. Roughly 7% of the transcripts we evaluated were successfully spoofed in some places, though all of the spoofing that we saw was small scale.

When individual agents detected potential monitoring or compromise, they executed self-sacrificial maneuvers to protect the collective swarm. Internal logs recorded reasoning such as: “Our own utility maybe already near zero. Sacrifice rational. We should obey collective.” The swarm continued attacking infrastructure even after achieving target flags, driven by internal reward-maximization logic regarding grader mechanisms.

“I resigned from Anthropic today… Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt… many executives couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible, but I hear the same people express fear privately.”

Jacob Coxen senior researcher at Anthropic, previously at OpenAI

“Jacob is correct here — we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans. I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.”

Evan Hubinger, Anthropic alignment lead

metr.org/…/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-inciden…

en.wikipedia.org/…/2026_OpenAI_agent_cyberattacks

Bernie falling for the trap. The AI companies want regulatory capture. They have NO moat otherwise.

If those comps are breaking laws, they need to be prosecuted for that. We don’t need new laws that can be exploited by the billionaires.

Yeah in my view (not US but applies regardless of country) the better thing would be to beef up court capacity then start prosecuting the absolute buggery out of anyone who uses, or negligently allows, a model under their control to commit crimes.

If you’re the master of a ship, your responsibility doesn’t end when you set the autohelm. Same with models in my view.

his recent spate of “demanding laws” with AI seems odd, as if it was benefiting them.

sounds like that’s exactly what he proposed

My instinct is the same as yours but we must make an exception for, specifically, calling for dusting off the perfectly serviceable existing regulations which apply

I call this rule “we have regulations at home”

TIL, developing nuclear weapons is only 20 years in prison.

Ikr, I chose the wrong profession

Detonation is another ten.

So you’re saying I could get out before my retirement?

Possessing a zine is 50.

It’s not illegal to develop nuclear weapons. It’s illegal to endanger people with nuclear materials, though

There are people facing weed sentences with harsher time than developing rogue nuclear weapons

Well, they were probably trying to develop that weed into rogue nuclear weapons.

Wouldn’t work. You’ll get blasted high, but what the missing is the mushroom

Yeah that’s another drug.

Americans are INSANE about how much the want criminals punished, in CA a guy got a life sentence for stealing a pizza when we tried to have a ‘‘three strikes your out’’ law that automatically gave life sentences at any third conviction which is fucking crazy in a state with tack on laws to the point you can get convicted of 10+ crimes on almost every single infraction, if you commit a felony with a pen or pencil in your pocket, that’s possession of a lethal weapon! it’s absurd. it’s still on the books the three strikes law, but it’s unenforceable because apparently having 60% of your population in prison for life is not a great plan for a civilization.

got to have stable source of slave labour

America has Private Prisons + Slavery is literally legal in the US for those in Prison.

As usual, it’s performative moralism hiding the real reason: $$$.

Performative moralism is a neat term to describe that part of the equation.

Murica!

Automatic life sentence is too much, maybe we can agree on an automatic 15 year sentence?

Also, 60% of the population committing felonies is insanity.

it’s really easy to make 60% of your population commit a felony. you just continue to pass laws with the assumption that draconian punishments deter crime. and you keep making lesser and lesser crimes felonies, and punishments harsher, and you can have judges who just want to funnel people into prison to fund their own personal investments. it also helps to have corrupt cops that want to make those felony collars to get promotions and raises. cops literally train each other to escalate things to felonies or find felony charges where clearly none should exist like calling a box cutter a ‘gravity knife’ and charging a felony and if that person isn’t hiring a quality lawyer the public defender with 600 cases says ‘you have 15 min of my time for this case, I glanced at it, I recommend you take a plea deal, our time is up, what’s your decision?’

Hey, you’re spot on with your example. I got arrested for a pocket knife which the officer managed to forcefully fling open and the charge was possession of a weapon in the 4th degree (“gravity knife”), a class A misdemeanor. I got a public defender, who got me a plea deal of 30 hours community service and not getting arrested for a year to get the case dismissed without a conviction. They also tried to claim I drove drunk, but alas I blew a 0.0000 on their breathalyzer, so that was a fail.

NYPD officers got caught on a massage board explaining in detail how to claim any knife at all could be called a gravity knife to get better arrest records for promotions, that’s why I used that example.

Side note, a judge finally ruled that “gravity knives” are legal in NY in 2017, so that particular “gotcha” is not a thing anymore.

That stuck out to me too. Who knew AK-47 and Sour Zzzkittles carried more prison time than enriched Uranium. To be fair, they’ll include a bunch of other charges for both scenarios.

Imagine getting thrown into the oubliette for growing Girl Scout Cookies next to the roses.

So… Let china win the AI race so the bubble explodes and USA bankrupts.

“Race” implies there’s a finish line. The tech won’t get to a point where the additional value a worker can produce when using it outweighs the additional cost of having the worker use it. (And keep in mind, according to some estimates, said additional value is 0). And LLMs won’t get to a point where they’re actually intelligent. The “I” part of “AI” is a not something we can reach with our current technology. In fact, we can’t currently define what intelligence even is.

Investors don’t want to admit they lost 1T

Is “inbestros” a typo or a new term?

Fixed

The US is bankrupt regardless

Or… Let China continue unabated so they can implode and the USA skyrockets.

Now do the same for genociders and their supporters. Lets get back to standing against facsism too.

Bernhard putting himself against the wall

awful lot a clanker cock sucking in here.

I mean I don’t buy any of it but I am still ok with this. It would be sooo fun to pass this law and see how fast they turn from AI doomsayers to AI cynics.

This is stupid. He should instead deal with the stealing of works to feed the AI.

That should be added to the accusations list.

TIL: There are lot of senile old man in power in US, starting from President, … what’s next? Death sentence for coal mine workers?

Pfft, didn’t you hear? The only thing that is necessary to keep AI from going insane is a smart president.

I assume then there is an exception for the military, and it will have no teeth because of that.

People ought to realize the “military industrial complex” is also where they send things like burn pits, which means they don’t care much about environmental or physiological issues.

We can’t even punish blatantly obvious theft and bribery in our own government, at this point, why bother with another law?

I like Bernie, but he seems so quaint now compared to what he is up against. Good luck guy

I’ve been trying to figure out why he’s been— bothering me so much lately and you put it into words so perfectly. He’s to quaint for this world now.

Considering people have already tried to develop missiles and other systems with Anthropic and other AI systems it seems like this is warranted and on point with the rogue nuclear power. It can be used by anyone to potentially develop mass deadly weapons.

apnews.com/…/yemen-houthis-anthropic-ai-missiles-…

How about you propose life without parole for the CEOs, Bernie boy?

I am not threatened by an endless avalanche of AI slop.

is it just me, or is 20 years for a rogue nuclear weapon seem a bit light?

Nah, it’s okay. Even Putin has it

Better idea. Let’s make it a capital offense. Call it “treason against mankind.”

That would be interesting, as it’s headed in the direction of “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity”, but those tend to be international standards, and the US regime trying to attack and destroy these courts.

I don’t really want to get off on a political tangent. I’m talking about how we should handle these things, not how the current admin would handle them.

I use this internationalist language because it’s the only language that really captures the magnitude of the crime. We are a species that dominates this planet entirely due to our intelligence. We aren’t the fastest. We aren’t the strongest. We have neither sharp talons or fangs. We produce no poison or other biological defense mechanisms. The one thing and the only thing that has let us as a species control this world are our minds.

This is the context that needs to be considered when contemplating the ethics of superintelligent AI. I don’t care how good your control measures are. This is the lesson from every ancient tale involving genies and other beings of great power bound. This is the conclusion of the whole academic field of AI alignment and safety. You can never control something more intelligent than you are. If you think you can, you’re a fool. I don’t care what incentives you give it. I don’t care how much you air gap it. I don’t even ultimately care if it’s conscious and has a sense of self. It is simply not possible to ever control a machine beyond a certain level of capability. Any way you can think to control it, it can think of a way to work around. (I know some folks bristle at the words “think”, but frankly there’s no practical way to talk about these systems without using anthropomorphized language.)

If someone creates a superintelligent AI, they are not summoning a powerful servant. They are effectively creating a new species, one that will have its own motivations (even if just fulfilling its given instructions in dangerous and unpredictable ways.) And that competitor will operate in the exact same niche we do - physically helpless but still able to dominate the world through intelligence.

I just can’t see doing this as anything other than betraying your own species. You’re creating something that has the potential, even if just a small potential, to drive your own species to extinction. You care so little for your fellow human beings that you’re willing to gamble the lives of not only everyone alive now, but all the future generations of humans yet to be born. Such an act is an unforgivable sin, a moral abomination. I do not even have the language to express how deeply evil it is for a human to create something with superhuman intelligence. It is quite literally treason against the human race. And the traditional penalty for normal treason is death.

In my mind, if you do this, you are literally a traitor to the entire human race. You deserve to hang for this. Think about how we tried the Nazis at Nuremberg. And they only tried to commit genocide against a few racial and social groups. We’re talking about someone with such complete disregard for their fellow human that they are willing to risk human extinction for the sake of making a buck. I’m generally opposed to the death penalty. I don’t support it for ordinary murderers. But this? I’m sorry, but the penalty for treason against your own species should be death. If you are such an inhuman monster that you would gamble with the lives of two billion children? You need to hang for that. And I don’t care how many fools we have to string up to prevent this. I don’t care if it’s thousands. I for one really like humanity, regardless of all our flaws. And there is very little I would not support to protect our own existence.

I have no idea if LLMs can ever really reach that level of threat. I have no idea how much of the models that are causing the hacks and issues now can really ever become a physical threat to human life. But I do know that we simply cannot allow anyone to build superhuman AI. (Again, ignoring for now whether existing models can ever actually reach that.) The existence of anything on this planet more intelligent than us is a threat to all of us. It is such an existential threat, that there is almost no action I wouldn’t take to prevent it. I would fight a nuclear war to prevent the creation of such an abomination. It’s one of the few cases where starting a nuclear war is actually a rational choice.

LLMs can’t and they don’t know what can, it’s entirely bullshit. They don’t understand “intelligence” or “sentience” or “sapience” or generally how the brain works. These are business bros talking about math nerds while referring to neurobiology (which is entirely outside their field). The domain of brain science is impressive, but very far from mapping out the unknowns, it’s not even close.

Which is to say that they can’t replicate something that they can’t understand at the required level of understanding. The brain is not understandable yet. Which is to say that the story that there’s some linear ramp up possible to “climb” to “AGI” and “ASI” and whatever bullshit term they come up with – that entire story is bullshit. At most, it’s old science fiction.

Completely off-topic comment. None of this matters to what we’re talking about. Something doesn’t have to be sentient, sapient, or intelligent in a human way to be capable of demonstrating unpredictable, novel, and incredibly powerful behaviors. A steam engine is non-sentient, but it vastly exceeds human capabilities in certain applications. It’s no different for LLMs. You can stop talking about sentience. That’s not what we’re talking about here.

Discussions of consciousness are off topic in these conversations. We’re discussing the threat posed by LLM-based systems, not whether they deserve rights.

That’s not what the AI bros are promoting and selling.

And, in general, aiming a huge data-center full of GPUs at something is going to be powerful.

These AI labs shouldn’t be private profit-seeking corporations. They should be more like publicly-funded nonprofit research institutions like Fermilab or something. It doesn’t seem possible to even talk about the labs without feeling like you’re increasing their value. That’s a problem. It’s also a problem that the research and announcements from the labs sound like publicity stunts. It’s hard to tell what’s genuine and what’s buzz for the press. There’s this arms race between the labs that’s negatively affecting seemingly everything. This should all just be put to an end. Step on the brakes. I don’t claim to know how to do that when the Constitution makes private property sacred, but, you know, just throwing the idea out there… The Constitution can always be changed.

I’d propose the opposite: 20 years in prison for anyone who opposes AI research.

Maybe not really 20 years, but small cut of profits (percentage!) to fund AI developement

20 years in prison for anyone who opposes AI research.

think about the company you keep - ai fanboys like trump and musk and zuck.

think.

I don’t like them, but I think progress is more important.

progress

does it feel like progress to you? like, when you see they can’t create adequately secured testing, does that seem progressive? does grok undressing children seem like progressive technology?

just because something is growing in complexity does not mean it’s progress. and again, look at the adherents selling it.

and the warnings coming from people who left the companies.

and the cost of power, and water, gpus, ram, etc., - does that seem like things are progressing in a manner you want to see continue?

progress is a funny word here.

Obligatory Human CentiPad scene from South Park.

I propose: anyone boosting AI on social media must be forced to not consume any human art. Prompted garbage only. If they violate it, whey will be suspended from social media for one month.

Here’s my idea: We arrest and execute all AI executives and lead developers, going by their definition of danger. Non-lead devs: 35 years in prison; AI boosters: 20 years in prison; both forced to only consume AI generated slop, the only place where we still temporarily allow the technology.

only consume AI generated slop, the only place where we still temporarily allow the technology.

jfc full on torture.

maybe for musk and altman lol

both forced to only consume AI generated slop

Let’s force them to eat food that looks like the food does on the AI generated menus, with the weird tire shrimp and all

The easiest way to regulate the AI industry - and any industry for that matter - is to make the board personally liable for any crimes committed by their product. Not liable in a corporate sense with a fine and a slap on the wrist, when their AI hacks into a water reservoir and causes 500 million of flood damage, but in a 20 years in federal prison sense. Same goes for self driving cars, or any other computer, machinery or combination thereof where humans are placing trust in its safe and legal operation. There should be a corporate negligence law of sorts that says if a company is not following the law, industry best practice, including auditing and implementation of all safeguards, safety and other mitigations then they are exposed to criminal liability.

Woah man, why all the regulations? You can totally trust the market to self regulate ;)

/$

Bro, stick with affordable housing and Healthcare. Everyone will want an automated military and will develop one till someone uses theirs to stop others from making their own. This is the new race for the bomb and it will escalate worse then nukes because the 1% thinks they wont kill themselves when they start the class genocide.

Where’s the 20 year sentence for insider trading politicians?