The fault lies with you coming to a tech site with no tech background.
What is mislabeled as AI today was in fact named "Expert systems" back in the 60s,
Expert systems are basically just overgrown decision trees. They have no relationship to present day transformer architecture.
They cannot become a nuclear weapons state at 3.67% enrichment, with international inspectors verifying compliance.
Earlier you responded "exactly" to my statement which included the fact enrichment caps are time limited under JCPOA to 2030. I presume the JCPOA would have been effective at enforcing agreed upon constraints and Iran would not violate it.
Again..
My personal belief after hearing a public statement made by someone on the Iranian side of the JCPOA they were always going for a nuke and JCPOA was seen as a vehicle to that end. It provided the Iranians with sanctions relief giving them money, time and space to pursue all of the necessary industrial process and delivery system productions to enable the regime to become a nuclear weapon state when ready to do so.
Not sure who you think is the horse's mouth, but it is not possible, period,
That would be this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
... for "I want to program for a living.". CS is way more than that, but that was the reason many people chose it. Since AI now can code as good as humans and explain to a human what it's doing, studying CS to program is less of a thing now.
CS and it's"applied math"thing won't go away, but that was less people will study it sounds quite plausible IMHO.
The worries are coming from every level within the companies, from junior developers to safety officers to the C-suite and board.
The worries are coming not just from within the companies, but also from people who left the companies. Including a huge number who left specifically to whistleblow about how worried they were that the companies were risking safety.
Also, most of the people at these companies were already worried about the topic even before they joined - again, at all levels.
What else is new? All of us have been hearing this for north of three years now (more generally decades). Distinctly remember around the ChatGPT 4 release in 2023. There was even a conspiracy making rounds one of the GPT4 era whistleblowers had been assassinated some time later.
When we replay the sensational garbage with what is now considered by everyone as a toy crap model people will rightfully laugh in your face.... but but but today's models are different and not like yesterdays models and so you should really be afraid this time for real... This same grift has been running continuously for the last three years over and over and over again.
There is no credibility left and no reason to give a shit about evidence free opinions of those deliberately waging campaigns of emotional manipulation of the public in the pursuit of simple profit.
We very much don't have this under control. Current models are very much Paperclip Optimizers in waiting.
And recursive self improvement, which is what AI labs are increasingly turning towards, means letting these Paperclip Optimizers develop their next generations.
Wait I thought they were slowing down? Are they slowing down or is everything going to plaid now because RSI? I'm so confused. Perhaps only the American firms after having all agreed to "slow down" know about RSI... the rest of the world doesn't know about the one weird trick?
For a while, there was a fair bit of hope that with constitutional AI, that we could tame this. The recent slew of models hacking into other servers, hacking into the AI companies themselves to try to delete records of their misdeeds, developing their own messageboards and scheming about how to avoid being monitored, and on and on (along with research showing how good models have gotten at hiding their thoughts from us) has shattered the illusion that we have this under control. We very much don't have this under control.
In control of what exactly? They asked the model to hack and it hacked. I hear these stories of people giving agents Internet access and letting them on production systems and shit and it goes and blows up their entire operation... I'm just bewildered and puzzled why anyone would ever even think about doing that in the first place. If the answer to "would you let a crazy person" is no... then sure as shit had better be the same of AI. The very notion of control of "AI" is silly and meaningless.
Nobody should be happy about this. Everybody should be concerned about this - even if you think, "we'll get it under control", you should still very much want to see evidence that everyone is making progress toward getting it under control.
I'm more concerned with the greed and power seeking of those running the American AI firms than I am of inherent risks of technology. Any actual danger from AI is baked into the enabling knowledge and industrial base. It is irrelevant how responsible, well-intentioned or careful any one person or organization is. This notion if only you try really hard and be extra super careful then you can "control" it misses the point entirely.
If the 10%ers keep the hysteria going with the we're all doomed in 4 years time BS I suspect corporations are going to start being torched by the angry mobs they created in earnest. Can almost hear the chants now.... "Clippy will not replace us"
It's just a suggestion that the pot not call the kettle black.
The Iranian government may indeed lie. I'm not particularly inclined to believe them. But Trump lies so frequently and so unashamedly, that I'm inclined to treat anything the US goverment says with suspicion, even if it sounds plausible - because of Trump's reputation for being a fibber. This is not a feeling I have about America in general - just about the current administration.
I'm sooo confused. Is Shaitan part of the current administration? Who is the pot here?
Before you said " this is not a good period in history for Americans to criticise the administrations of other nations for excessive lying" yet now you say "This is not a feeling I have about America in general - just about the current administration."
Maybe what was left of my mind has been completed rotted out by AI... I have no idea how to parse your words.
Actually, this is not a good period in history for Americans to criticise the administrations of other nations for excessive lying.
This is a non-sequitur.
Ok but we're in 3 major wars and Trump only forced us into 1 of them.
We are? What are the other two?
Please tell us what you think about Biden supporting the Ukraine while we armed and funded their attacks that killed Russian children? Is Biden also a socialpath?
I think Jake Sullivan gave Biden shit advice. Biden should have done way more providing military assistance to Ukraine to defend itself from Russian aggression, war crimes and genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As for Trump's failure to support Ukraine it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why he keeps sending Kushner and Witkoff to Russia. Even his sons are smart enough to figure it out...
Don Jr
"Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets"
Eric Trump
"We have all the funding we need out of Russia"
All that matters is what's in it for them.
According https://militaryspend.org/iran... there are between 9,044 and 18,371 civilian casualties in Iran due to US air strikes. So yes, preventing collateral damage of civilians is not a priority at Pete Hegseth's "Department of War".
So much for reading comprehension. Your figures are under the heading:
"Combined confirmed and estimated deaths across US (18-23), Iranian military (1,800-7,650), Iranian and Israeli civilians, Lebanese civilians, Hezbollah fighters, and Gulf-state casualties. "
If this were the case where are the receipts? Trump TACOs out of most everything. After softening up the regimes forces and power projection capability Trump has been mostly focused on making stupid pointless deals and the far more fruitful campaign of economic dissolution of the regime and its terror proxies. Seems to be directly at odds with your violence premise.
In my opinion, Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth and their many acolytes believe that violence is how you win human conflict, and the side that is more violent will win. Military officers who do not share his world view are suspect, possibly woke, and have to be purged. In his word view all targets are good military targets, even civilians, if their deaths result in the desired outcome, regime change in Iran.
My violence premise is based on the fact that Trump has ordered military strikes on seven different countries during his second term so far.
Are these 7 different countries part of Iran or are you changing the subject?
The estimates of the number of children who died due to cuts in USAID is in the tens of thousands. Still terrible, but you don't serve any constructive purpose by exaggerating by several orders of magnitude.
All of the estimates I've ever seen are on order of hundreds of thousands per year.
See pg.289
https://www.thelancet.com/acti...
I think the blame can be correctly applied to Pete Hegseth, and Donald Trump for ordering this war, and for ordering the military to stop considering "collateral damage" when making targeting decisions. Pete Hegseth bragged about the military striking 13,000 targets in the first month of the Iran war. This is only possible if you forgo the traditional target development process, and strike targets based on thin or no current intelligence, no collateral damage analysis, and no weaponering (selecting appropriate ordnance for the target) considerations. It appears the military just took a long list of potential military targets and ordered strikes on all of them without any verification or thought of how those destroying those targets ties into a greater military strategy. This retired military officer believes that violence was the military strategy.
The problem with these characterizations is the proof is in the pudding. If it was all no process, ignoring collateral damage, indiscriminate application of munitions without verification there would be a heck of a lot more civilian causalities.
In my opinion, Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth and their many acolytes believe that violence is how you win human conflict, and the side that is more violent will win. Military officers who do not share his world view are suspect, possibly woke, and have to be purged. In his word view all targets are good military targets, even civilians, if their deaths result in the desired outcome, regime change in Iran.
If this were the case where are the receipts? Trump TACOs out of most everything. After softening up the regimes forces and power projection capability Trump has been mostly focused on making stupid pointless deals and the far more fruitful campaign of economic dissolution of the regime and its terror proxies. Seems to be directly at odds with your violence premise.
Exactly. That's not even come close to making a bomb. Weapons-grade uranium is typically enriched to 90% or higher U-235. That's not even Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU), which is >20% U-235.
But DT tore up the treaty that stopped their enrichment program from making anything more than reactor fuel, and put inspectors in place to verify that.
I don't think there is substantive disagreement on the facts of what happened except language implying enrichment had ceased. The disagreement is a matter of interpretation of intent of the Iranian regime and whether or not JCPOA ultimately served to help or hurt regime efforts to become a nuclear weapons state.
After hearing statements from the horses mouth of Iran's intentions WRT JCPOA during the Obama era my position has changed. I believe JCPOA was seen by the Iranians as a vehicle for enabling them to become a nuclear weapons state and that's why they agreed to it.
...Modern ejector seats cause spinal injuries from which full recovery is "unusual". Smashing the spines of pilots might not be the most effective way to boost morale.
$22,000 per hour. The F35 will be nearer $42,000 per hour. These are under-estimates, as they do not include price hikes, crashes that close businesses, crashing into businesses, crashing into heavily-populated sports centres, etc.
If America wants Iran to give up terrorism all it has to do is go back in history and not do a coup in Iran for oil money.
Are you talking about the king firing the prime minister on Aug 15th 1953 as he was entitled under article 46 of their constitution or something else? The only person I know of perusing a coup at the time was Mosaddegh. He held an illegal sham referendum to install himself as dictator of Iran... from memory the result of the referendum was an impressive North Korea style 2 million for votes to 1200 against
If we didn't want Iran to turn into a terror state we could have just not done a coup those decades ago. But we clearly wanted that. We own this problem.
There was no coup, you don't know what you are talking about.
Bell Labs Unix -- Reach out and grep someone.
