ok so maybe a little general knowledge helps...

This looks to me like a copy and paste from the a USA legal team to the UK... why ?

the USA courts routinely ask for backups from ANYWHERE in the world and even when they are encrypted they appear to use standard tools to decrypt

when you consider the number of American FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) requests to APPLE number over 500 and cover over 77,000 USERS

this starts to look a little silly and if I was to guess the legal team at Apple pushed back knowing that if they did not the rest of the world would all start this...

the USA agencies routinely takes requests and executes on them but "extracts its pound..." for doing so... the the UK pushed using their own laws and got given the run around...

have fun...

https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sour-idUSKBN1ZK1CO/

This is why they're so keen on robots. They want guards whose loyalty they can really count on when the mob shows up with a guillotine.

That one might surrender and meekly accept their likely death at the hands of the machine, I can believe. But all of them? This isn't the first such claim we've heard about AI danger.

I believe that Yudkowsky believes what he says he believes, for example. He says shut them all down worldwide, immediately, and if there are rogue nations who don't go along with it then launch air strikes on their data centres - even against a nuclear state. He said that three years ago. That's the thinking of a man who believes it's genuinely likely that the machines will kill us all in the near future.

And this is still considered extremist lunacy. That tells me the rest of them don't believe what he does.

The general public should care because there's apparently a good chance these machines are going to kill them all, very soon.

They don't care because they don't believe that.

When some AI agent of theirs, trying to meet a developer's benchmark test, eventually hacks the power grid or the water supply to a metropolis to help itself to a way around a sandbox environment, then the general public will care. And when that happens they may well drag AI industry CEOs and researchers out of their beds to the nearest lamp-post.

> approximately eight hundred billion ... oops, that's eight hundred million, of course. Ten percent probability, times the current population of the Earth. The expected consequences of allowing the AI industry to continue their work, according to people who are oddly calm about the prospect.

The actual post is behind a login wall, but I don't see from the BBC article that he's even advocating any action. Is he demanding the immediate shutdown of the data centres? Raids on the labs? Coordinated global action to impound and destroy the equipment? Life imprisonment for anybody found training large neural networks? Rogue researchers declared hostis humani generis? There's no mention of it.

That's what I'd be advocating at the very least. Then the question of whether to take direct action personally on top of that would be one of practicality - can I lay my hands on the right equipment, how can I do the most effective damage, do I have access to high value targets, will it be dramatic enough to frighten new recruits away from joining the industry, will others be inspired to follow my example, should I take the time first to form a team for more extensive action, that kind of thing. It wouldn't be a question of whether it should happen, only one of whether those are the right tactics. Yes, in all probability I'd decide I wasn't personally cut out for terrorism or assassination, but not everybody would decide so. It would be a reasonable choice in the circumstances.

If the expected bodycount from the operation of this industry over the next ten years was approximately eight hundred billion, then that would make AI researchers the single most dangerous group of human beings that has ever existed. The National Socialist German Workers' Party, previous title holders for the worst people ever, probably didn't kill even a tenth as many as this man says he expects AI firms to kill in roughly the same timescale. That is the comparison that would frame my thinking about AI researchers and what we should do with them, if I believed what he says he believes.

And I just don't see that kind of thing coming up in these conversations. People calmly and academically discuss their probability estimates as if it's a question of pure theory, not the imminent destruction of all humanity. If they really believed what they say, there would certainly by now be AI Luigis everywhere, data centres would be burning, and people would be quitting the industry all over the world for their own safety. That simply isn't happening. So I don't believe they actually do think that this outcome is likely. Actions speak louder than words, and their actions say they don't believe a word of it.

... then I would be demanding that every single person involved in the AI industry be rounded up and shot. All of them. My former boss, my coworkers, our competitors, all of them. I would be advocating a world in which is was worse to be found with LLM weights on your computer than to be caught with the worst possible kind of CSAM.

But apparently the idea that his former employer might literally kill literally everybody in just ten years' time isn't that big a deal for this guy. Go into the office one day and take a Second Amendment approach to as many of the frontier research team as possible? No... let's just whine about it on the internet!

Which is why I'm not at all convinced he believes this. If he believed that, this action is too small a response. Nothing short of Butlerian jihadism is an appropriate response, if you actually believe this.

It appears that you will not cite where I said any of that. Is that because you can't find it or that you are lying?

I did not "INSIST" on anything. You are lying. I said is that WHATEVER I type into my calendar should be private that AI cannot not read. It could be "Out". It could be "Holiday". It could be "Doctor's Appointment". I don't know what your calendar looks like but "Out" for every single block of time makes it very difficult to plan. You are inventing things.

Dear Lord, your comprehension is poor: I said: "In the case of surgery, you mean besides to remind people I work with that I'm having surgery so I will be out for X number of days? IF I have a surgery, I block the days I will need for recovery. I TELL my team members WHY I am out. I COULD put it in the calendar as "Surgery" or "Playing Video Games" It doesn't matter. No one should see WHY. Your first response is that I could be robbed. You keep inventing scenarios INSTEAD OF FUCKING READING.

Do you even work in an office with people? Every response of yours relies on an unwillingness to recognize other people exist.

That is a lie. I said nothing of the sort. Please cite where I did. I have repeatedly said the exact opposite. REPEATEDLY. What you are saying is you could not bother to FUCKING READ.

HOW FUCKING DENSE ARE YOU? When you let AI program things, it misses details. Every current calendar out there has privacy settings. Privacy settings is one of the many things that I expect AI to miss when coding a calendar app.

NO ONE FUCKING SAID THAT. Why do you keep making up shit? No one is "forced" into anything.

WHAT PARTING OF FUCKING PRIVACTY SETTINGS DO YOU STILL NOT UNDERSTAND. PRIVACY SETTINGS.

FUCKING PRIVACY SETTINGS. YOU STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT PRIVACY SETTINGS ARE.

Wow you really don't have any clue what you are talking about. I have never said that. NEVER. In fact I said very early the EXACT OPPOSITE: "They are not supposed to be visible which is the point you are missing." My point AGAIN is whether this calendar app correctly secured such private information. I don't know but given the track record of AI generated code, security might be entirely missing or superficial.

You've made it perfectly clear everyone is stupid for not doing things your way.

Again no one should be able to read it. For a second there, I thought you were smart enough to understand that but apparently not.

The fact that you don't understand how fundamentals of privacy where one user can see information and another cannot.

Again everyone should do everything your way regardless of things like privacy settings.

It is not readable. Why do you have so much trouble understanding this?

Again it is not readable. Your lack of understanding basics of security is troubling.

Please tell me eadon.com is yours

So in summary, you understand that two different users should see two different things. But that should not be allowed because you do thing differently. Everyone must do it the way you do it. So we are back to the main problem: Your lack of seeing another person's perspective. I should just type in "Unavailable" for every time I am off. No one should type in the reason they are out so they can keep track of why they were out or plan why they will be out.

The better the tracking data, the more targeted the impression, the higher the clickthru rate. Crafting tracking consent dialogs in a way that favors one app or the other is going to increase the efficiency of campaign placements that target users of that app, rather than campaigns run by app developers who experience a lower percent of users consenting to track.

Let me explain this slowly to you as you do not seem to understand. In my calendar I have listed the exact reason why I am not available. It could be "Surgery" It could be "Playing video games". It could be "Out" NO ONE SHOULD SEE WHY I AM UNAVAILABLE BUT ME. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Do you even work an office? Everyone I work with has the same setting. I don't know WHY they are out. They know.

I should see the reason, not you. Are you so dense you do not understand that two users should see two different things DUE TO SECURITY? It should not matter to you why I am out. It only matters to me.

WTF are you talking about? If I have a medical procedure, it does not necessarily mean I am in the hospital. It means I am not available for work. I could be home the entire time after the surgery.

I would think someone in Europe would understand privacy, but alas no.

Again you seem not to be able to see someone else's perspective. Do you even work in an office? Every calendar app I use shows "Unavailable" to you but shows me WHATEVER REASON I typed in to keep track of why I was out.