41–50 of 55 posts
It seems that, one by one, every bastion against fearmongering click baits shall eventually fall... They might as well rename it to "This one new threat could kill your family"
«When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout»
~~ Walt Disney - Donald Duck
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair. That doesn't mean we should throw our hands in the air. The genie is out of the bottle, we know the nature of the threat, and we've spent 25+ years figuring out how to make distributed systems theoretically secure -- instead of trying to "slow AI research down" (which, again, is not going to happen) we could instead be yelling about NOW being the time to secure the shit out of your essential systems, train your…
> doesn't mean we should throw our hands in the air Nobody is doing this. > instead of trying to "slow AI research down" (which, again, is not going to happen) The people who currently control AI are framing any attempt to weaken, share or regulate that control as slowing down AI research. That argument is broadly being rejected. In part because you can't simultaneously argue that something "is not going to happen" b…
https://www.axios.com/2026/09/10/ai-investors-anthropic-doom
> In part because you can't simultaneously argue that something "is not going to happen" but also will happen if we regulate it.
Even if the US regulates it (not going to happen: cf Trump administration), China won't, because it's a competitive advantage against the US to have better AI.
It seems that, one by one, every bastion against fearmongering click baits shall eventually fall... They might as well rename it to "This one new threat could kill your family"
What makes you believe it’s fearmongering and not genuine concern?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI needs a lot of power, and AI can only (theoretically) breach & control what it can access through the internet. "AI needs a lot of power" depends on where you draw your lines. I can say a lightbulb needs a lot of power if I include all the power needed to generate all the surrounding infrastructure and make the lightbulb itself. Sincere question: I wonder how much power was consumed in the 88 hours required for…
> It took 88 hours and who knows how many kwh to solve a problem that no other human has solved, and Humans have already solved breaching and destroying systems that can't be accessed over the internet (see Stuxnet). > that can outsmart Just to reframe slightly: out-remember and out-persist, not outsmart. As far as I understand, the math problems have been cracked by combining stuff that humans originally developed,…
I don't really understand what value reframing brings here, other than give some sense of comfort that maybe we're still able to outsmart AI (based on a reframed definition of outsmarting.)
I'm not sure. Coming up with solutions to maths problems that humans haven't yet, finding and utilising multiple zero day exploits to form message boards to then hack other companies without being noticed.... I think accepting that AI can outsmart humans here seems to be less mental gymnastics than "lets just reframe this".
Reframing the problem as more of what we already know will lead us to doing more of what we've always done, but it's the things we've always had and done now that are starting to fall to AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> doesn't mean we should throw our hands in the air Nobody is doing this. > instead of trying to "slow AI research down" (which, again, is not going to happen) The people who currently control AI are framing any attempt to weaken, share or regulate that control as slowing down AI research. That argument is broadly being rejected. In part because you can't simultaneously argue that something "is not going to happen" b…
> Nobody is doing this. https://www.axios.com/2026/09/10/ai-investors-anthropic-doom > In part because you can't simultaneously argue that something "is not going to happen" but also will happen if we regulate it. Even if the US regulates it (not going to happen: cf Trump administration), China won't, because it's a competitive advantage against the US to have better AI.
American companies do it to build an independent AI god that is going to kill us all. And to blow the financial bubble a little bit more.
So, American regulation would in fact deal with the prinary threat to humanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI needs a lot of power, and AI can only (theoretically) breach & control what it can access through the internet. "AI needs a lot of power" depends on where you draw your lines. I can say a lightbulb needs a lot of power if I include all the power needed to generate all the surrounding infrastructure and make the lightbulb itself. Sincere question: I wonder how much power was consumed in the 88 hours required for…
> required for the Navier-Stokes problem. Is that the one they stole?
From what I understand, the solution OpenAI came out with might or might not have been informed or shaped by work from humans. This is how research, science and knowledge generally works, basically no new knowledge or discoveries are made in a vacuum.
Whether or not OpenAI should have had access to that extra bit of work from other humans is a totally fair discussion about research ethics and attribution and such, and OpenAI should be dressed down for that accordingly.
But I don't see the relevance to the point I was making.
BTW, another AI breach has been announced today. But luckily, AI will never breach safety-critical system. /s
Once few of those are in jail for felony hacking or criminal negligence, their AI will magically stop gpimg roque and hack. Pretty much guaranteed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> let the goyim deal in the real world Could you elebaorate on what that means? Had to Google 'goyim' and based on that, to my ignorant ears at least, your comment reads like it might be an attempt at a veiled antisemitic comment. But I'm going to assume the best and that that's not what this is.
It seems that, one by one, every bastion against fearmongering click baits shall eventually fall... They might as well rename it to "This one new threat could kill your family"
> They might as well rename it to «When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout» ~~ Walt Disney - Donald Duck