The AI "kill switch" sounds like a great idea to people who don't understand the tech. It sounds like a really obvious "given," that makes them think technicians are idiots for not having already baked one in. So legislation like this will be popular among that demographic.

Warnings about its dangers need to be stated in a way that they will understand. Like maybe "All AI models already have a kill switch: the computer's power cord. The government wants a new kill switch to turn off your computer over the internet against your will." Something simple and direct like that helps them to realize that this word doesn't mean what they think it means.

Well now you are contradicting yourself.

Previously you said that love is a choice, not an emotion. This was to make it very clear that it is completely under voluntary control, and we are being commanded to do just that.

Now you are saying that the "heart condition" comes first, can't be omitted. And what is this "heart condition?" An EMOTION??? That puts us right back to the original issue of commanding someone to feel an emotion, which doesn't make sense since emotions are not under voluntary control.

Either Jesus was commanding behavior (no emotion needed), or commanding emotion (which is not under voluntary control). Which is it?

Now that the term "super intelligence" doesn't have a distinguishing meaning anymore, we will have to find a different phrase to refer to AI that both qualifies as intelligent and further that qualifies as having intelligence beyond that of humans.

Something like...I don't know....Ultrahuman intelligence. It is less ambiguous than ultra-intelligence but is unfortunately long.

Oh well. I am sure you guys can come up with more alternatives.

Ah, so when Jesus said "Love God" what he ACTUALLY meant was: act as if you love God, regardless of how you feel inside. Even if you outright hate the bastard, so long as you put on a good show of loving behavior you will be able to hang out in heaven and watch as he tortures your friends in fire forever.

That checks out, since this technique of explaining that the speaker ACTUALLY meant something totally different than what they plainly said is a foundation of Biblical interpretation.

When Paul told Timothy that "God saves all men, especially those who believe" what he ACTUALLY meant was "God wants to save all men, but only saves those who believe"

When James said "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." what he ACTUALLY meant was the exact opposite: "Faith alone justifies, but we can expect that any faithful person would show good works."

And when Jesus said "The coming of the kingdom of God can't be seen. People won't say "look, it's over there" or "look, it's over here", because the kingdom of God is within you." what he ACTUALLY meant was "I am standing right here!"

Once you make a habit of totally changing what people say so that it fits your narrative about what they should have said, everything clicks right into place.

Hey I got a question for you, when you said the greatest commandment was "Love God with all your strength" did you know that love is a complex emotional state that cannot be evoked on command?

Government agencies have been caught red-handed weaponizing critical vulnerabilities and keeping that to themselves. Criminals managed to hack some and sell the vulnerabilities off on the black market, forcing disclosure for remediation.

Trump has AI stocks in his portfolio. He makes money when AI does well. So long as that is true, he is going to continue to promulgate the wonders of AI. That is something you can trust, because it is motivated by greed.

If he ever divests those assets, his position may change, of course.

They also want to manage their reputations. They don't want to appear glib about the harm that their products have already caused and are likely to cause, because they know they will be held accountable at some point.

Incidentally, any talk of guardrails for the AI agents risks making people feel too safe. Guardrails will only inhibit AIs that were trained by and are in use by legitimate law-abiding institutions. The cat is out of the bag, and governments and criminal organizations absolutely will acquire and/or construct AIs of their own that have no guardrails, and use those to attack anything they care to.

What we desperately need is a global shift to a higher gear on the implementation of good technical security measures, so that all our important systems can repel these new attacks. We can and should use AI to help us achieve this quickly.

There is a real and large market for buggy software. Nobody likes the bugs, of course, but everybody loves for the software to be cheap. Many business ventures are deliriously happy to use cheap buggy software that sometimes creates problems for their team, so long as most of the time it makes a lot of money.

For such markets, Agile is great. Developers very quickly churn out buggy software which can be sold for cheap precisely because it was churned out quickly. The magic phrase is "good enough." It's not perfect, it was never intended to be. It's cheap and "good enough," and so it outsells everything else on the market because the other packages are priced way too high. And they are priced too high because they spend too much time developing perfect software.

Many technicians have a really hard time with this. They want to take pride in their work, do things well, make software that is reliable and performant and not buggy. They will go on and on about how unwise and short-sighted it is to churn out buggy crap under deadlines that are too short to allow for property quality control. And, in a different market, they would be right. But in a market where the client wants cheap software quickly, and has a tolerance for bugs, the way the business wins is by churning out cheap buggy crap.

In other words: Agile.

When I use AI to generate my code, I generally do it in small steps. I do all the design work myself and just break out the implementation for the AI, and I never give it too much work at once, for the very reasons you just complained about.

Its a bit more of an issue when I must code review work done by junior devs who literally did just try to tell the AI to do it all for them. That experience has been similar to what you are describing, for me at least. I am unsure if these devs are actually getting better at coding, or if we are moving towards a peculiar future in which the generation of senior devs who actually understand code well enough to make effective use of AI have all retired, leaving behind a generation of people who can only feed requirements to an AI and then flail when it doesn't work.

It seems like the issue of AI hallucination is widely promulgated and widely known. I mean, this site has an overrepresentation of technicians who tend to think of highly esoteric tech information as common knowledge just because they work with it every day.....but I don't think this quirk of AI behavior is in that category.

And yet, people keep making this same mistake precisely where it matters. We get stories like this every other day. I have seen it at my own job, where my own boss who still has some semblance of technical talent was downplaying the risk of AI hallucination in a pipeline that would have the AI directly manipulating mission critical data prior to an import.

It is surreal how people want the AI hallucination problem to just stop being a problem the moment it is inconvenient for them. People who should know better let their wish for a reliable AI override their knowledge that AI is not reliable, and they just move forward with it.

I fear things are going to get worse, because we really seem to be failing to learn the obvious lesson here.

When the predicted event is ten years out, that means that it is still pure science fiction.

Everyone acts in their own best interest.

Big Tech messaging about what kids should learn is designed to benefit Big Tech in some way. Any truth-value to their statements would be secondary.

The fact that a message comes from "Big Tech" should never be used to give it credence, but merely to determine who would benefit. Evaluation of benefits to anyone else must be done independently.

May AI will acquire control of the orbital weapons and use them to kill all humans!

We might create a powerful AI that manages to acquire control over weaponized robots, and send them out to do the job.

But humans are so frightened of this that anything we might call "warbot" or "killerOS" or whatever will be dead on arrival. It would require a different marketing strategy.

Someone will sneak it under the radar by making it sound like some sort of positive, joyful AI operating system. Maybe we would call it something like....

Joyful OS.....
HappyOS....

Or maybe...

GLaDOS........