Is it incidental, or is it the system protecting itself? Recidivism leads to profit.

Since the license disclaimed responsibility.

And yet that is the current, prevailing situation. There is no warranty, so you are responsible, full stop. But this is true for closed commercial software as well. If they are exploited and consequently send you malware, it's your problem.

There hasn't been since we moved away from the cathedral model, but you couldn't trust the cathedrals either.

The serious things get integrated into distributions and you can get them that way. If you choose to get them another way in order to get a newer version or a fork, you are taking an additional risk. Again, this is how the bazaar model has always worked. This is not new.

That I can look things up in a dictionary? Fine. I'd rather be on several spectra all day than be an ignorant prick who deludes himself through misuse of words that do not mean what they think they mean but invoke an emotional response that convinces me that I'm right, like a warm blanket of bullshit.

You're choosing to use words that don't mean what you claim they mean on purpose to try to make your argument sound legitimate, by ascribing things to a piece of software which flatly do not apply. It's not a metaphor, it's just moronic.

Riding around with an arms merchant is what killed Diana. Alternatively, some claim she was about to expose something about land mines, but there's really nothing to expose there since nobody doesn't know that people use them and in order for that to happen, someone has to make them and sell them. Nobody wants to know any of this shit because all of the allegedly civilized/developed nations are in on it. They are ALL massive arms dealers. Watch some videos from the UK tank museum sometime, they talk constantly about how these vehicles were sold to that regime and participated in such and such conflict, usually without mentioning that they were acts of oppression or whatnot. It's just all jerking off over military hardware all the time.

Every CWD (county welfare department) in California has a SIU (special investigations unit) made up of badge-and-gun-carryingcops. If you have evidence of fraud like trafficking of EBT cards, your CWD's SIU department would appreciate a call.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA

I triple-quaduple promise you that Paxton would WANT his video edited out to remove things which are true. But it will never happen because he is a) too much a coward and b) too busy doing securities frauds which you support because it goes along with your support for child rape.

Die in a fire, Child rape lover.

You mean like the zero evidence that this approach will ever result in AGI, which doesn't stop AIbros from chanting it over and over again?

You need to learn to read.

I didn't say it will never be possible which is the only way your response would have made sense.

Try responding to what was written.

So, people are able to recognize this, and yet in the other threads here about Anthropic calling for a slow down of AI research, everyone seems convinced that this isn't about the risks really at all.

OM NOM NOM BOOTS

THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING, BOOT LICKER.

You're a traitor in spirit, if not in law.

They are a safety concern. They are creating an opportunity for a foreign adversary. Does anyone really believe these clowns are capable of maintaining security?

You can if you want, claim that OpenAI has had serious issues with honesty, especially with Sam Altman, their CEO. But Anthropic's record is a lot better. More to the point, the Theranos comparison doesn't work. The fundamental object Theranos was selling just didn't exist. AI systems do, and they are getting millions of people to use them. The situations are wildly different.

WordPress would probably improve if he did

If they were genuinely concerned, this is exactly what they'd do. So what makes you think they are doing this out of something for investors and not actually telling the truth about their motivations?

This. Madoff didn't get in trouble until he started fleecing people who were richer than he was. Then it became an issue.