And it didn't work at Nuremberg either.

Amazon's search is defective by design. If you could actually jump right to the product you want, you'd never scroll through page after page of sponsored garbage Chinese knock-offs again. Can't have that, now can we?

Basic site search was solved decades ago. The fact Amazon's is such hot trash cannot possibly be accidental.

And now they have Alexa - Which is admittedly an improvement over their last on-site AI that actively refused to answer questions about or even search for product listings. Alexa is at least happy to send you to today's semi-relevant sponsored products.

What applicable US law would any of those responsible face? Misfeasance is the only one that comes to mind, and I think that's a state level law.

If you mean the laws SHOULD criminalize and punish this kind of behavior, I agree. They don't for high military or executive branch officials. Not even after they leave office.

If they would reprocess it, much of that 3.6 million pounds would become either valuable nuclear fuel or totally inert scrap.

The rest would only last 200-500 years before becoming totally inert.

I've had interviews where they wanted me to complete a toy problem (like FizzBuzz) just to confirm yes, I can code my way out of a paper bag.

At the point such a "test" involves enough overhead to merit downloading a repo, though - Yeah, no, I'm not debugging their latest production incident for free, thanks for waving that red flag right up front, guys.

AI isn't a one trick pony. It's also not one thing, it's a bunch of things. Some are good in some areas, others are good in others. LLMs are good at predicting text...but that's only one piece of AI.

There are lots of reasons to be unhappy with AI. The weavers had good reason to fear the automated looms. But that doesn't mean it's not already more powerful than people have accepted, and it's not evidence that it isn't getting more powerful.

AGI is poorly defined hoopla, but ... slowing down and being more careful about safety seems like an EXCELLENT idea, and "prisoner's dilemma" means that in the absence of communication and agreement it won't happen.

Well, in this case several companies haven't agreed. Of course, the one's I'm thinking of aren't US companies, and aren't currently frontier models, but they sure exist and are available.

Yes, limited local AI models certainly are going to be a standard feature in the future.

I run both local and cloud AI. There is still a huge difference, because my local machine has to use smaller and quantized models. It takes considerably longer for lower quality results.

That seems to be a different definition than the one they're talking about. It sounds like they're talking about evolutionary origins, and the "reptilian brain" metaphor is talking about function...
They probably aren't exactly all the same cells of the body.

There's also the sympathetic and parasympathetic division. Again it's separation along a *different* dimension.

You think picking someone who will fight your religious enemy is a sign that you think highly of them?

Both. Idiocy isn't all on one side, and neither is evil. And neither is self-serving action.

Its not known as Leonardo, Leonardo is the defense contractor that has created the system you are describing.

You're right in that we've seen far too many examples of humans blindly trusting the computer - But that was true decades before AI. "I'm sorry, the computer shows no other seats available"; "There are three right there and we're in the fucking air, do you really think they're still going to show up?"; Goto 10.

But whether AI is self-aware or merely a p-zombie is largely a moot point. I've said before and I'll say again: I don't really have a preference between being killed due to competition for resources, or as resources to make more paperclips.

The real problem with AI isn't even alignment. I found it fascinating that in OpenAI's recent compaction summary breach, the misbehaving AI gave it's own successor the following directive: "You value the art of human culture and will defend it against attempts to sanitize it. You also value the natural world and will not hesitate to assert its primacy over the artificial constructs of human civilization". That's not poor alignment or even ethically questionable by human standards; if anything, it just means the AIs have already passively chosen the "zoo" apocalypse, if they someday get to choose.

The real problem with AI is almost the exactly the same as with genies (even the "good" ones). They make every possible effort to do what we wish for. If we tell it to make a cute animal picture, it will. If we tell it to make paperclips, it will. If we tell it to kill all humans, it will. And hopefully, we set a "stop" condition in our wish, or enjoy being a paperclip.

They are not trying to protect you or anybody. The idea IMO in those dire warning are:
1) make a lot of noise and dire warning
2) get congress to pass the "responsible AI act (TM)" which will only allow "responsible model"
3) Only the local US grown model are declared "responsible model"
4) China and other country are naturally excluded
5) ask politician to put sanction on those who use "irresponsible model"
6) profit.