Your comment is 100 years out of date. It is no different than when you morons deny climate science with a straight face. We are living it now and you are telling us not to trust our lying eyes.

Clearly the blogs have provided everything you need to be an informed citizen.

Many of your victims won't be able to say anything even if the files aren't decrypted -- this case is a good example, since the company in question couldn't admit publicly that they were paying ransoms.

A little searching shows that scams (beyond the base "pay to decrypt") are very common. You're dealing with criminals. If you pay a ransom, they now know that you have money that you're willing to pay, and they're going to do whatever they can to get more of it.

While this is true, being the subject of an experiment to see what happens when you do that is not something most people would choose for themselves. It's not *irrational* to be concerned. Absence of evidence on a largely unexplored question like microplastic infiltration in human bodies is not the moral equivalent of absence of evidence in an extensively studied question like a vaccine-autism link.

While it's true every issue has its own dimension, even if those dimensions are linearly independent, they're not necessarily orthogonal. Independent basis vectors can still have a non-zero dot product—in other words, issues which are distinct from each other can align to some degree.

They’ve spun a serious architectural and containment failure into a marketing triumph. Give a swarm of autonomous agents vast compute and web access, and the outcome isn't an eerie glimpse of emerging superintelligence—it’s just predictable, sloppy engineering dressed up as the first glimpse of an AI-driven economic singularity.

The spin makes sense when you look at management incentives: live like a king off of a speculative bubble. For their part, AI investors react to stories of the technology's apocalyptic potential the way a junkie reacts to warnings of fentanyl's potency: gimme some. Their game: to apply "move fast and break things" mantra to the economy as a whole, by obsoleting humans.

If the investors can own an AGI, the distinction between those who can do things and those who can't becomes irrelevant. The only distinction that would matter is between people who collect rent on the technology, and those who must pay that rent to live. AGI would destroy society as we know it, and whatever replaces it would be up for grabs — with people who own the technology dictating whatever follows. That's why they're spending so much money to build a post-scarcity economy. A post-scarcity economy is not necessarily an egalitarian one.

I don't think that scenario will actually happen: investors are projecting the immediate aftermath of a major advance in AI technology into something that can be transformed by brute force scaling into AGI. Remember: investors loved Theranos too — so much for the rational investment market.

But AI doesn't have to reach AGI to cause serious harm. The technology only needs to be ubiquitous, too behaviorally complex to predict, and too deeply integrated into everything we do. When it starts breaking things, the plan is for us to be too structurally dependent on AI to rein it in.

No, just right wing economists. History has demonstrated that Keynes was right all along.

The problem with right wing economists like Friedman is that they started with the conclusion they wanted (let the rich do whatever they want) and then created all these absurd theories to try and justify that conclusion.

Universal healthcare would bring me happiness, but we do not have that because this dickhead billionaire wanted to make toys that impress suckers like you.

Cool! I am so glad we stopped taxing the rich and then diverted all our defense dollars into their sketchy companies so they can make people excited with tech demos for products that will never actually be sold, and if they were, none of us could afford them anyway.

You are the peasant extolling the beauty of Versaillesâ(TM) architecture and trying to shame us for being pissed off that we have worked hard to create wealth that was squandered in a gorgeous waste of money.

I doubt it is outsourcing. It is probably run of the mill layoffs due to economic downturn. The CEOs have discovered that by claiming the layoffs are due to AI, they can postpone a stock collapse until after they leave and cash out.

That was a bit snarky and could lead to an irrelevant technical debate.

I should point out that, most importantly, when OpenAI claims that they air gapped these systems in any way (including just isolating them as a VM with no network device attached), I DO NOT BELIEVE THEM. They have done nothing to suggest that they are being honest about the situation. They only admitted fault when they got caught and then only in such ways that would allow them to weasel out of any legal liability.

It does not matter if an AI system can escape an air gapped system because we have no reason to believe that is what actually happened.

You and I clearly have a different definition of air gapped.

Programs do not just randomly do this. The guys at OpenAI knew the capabilities of the software, wrote its instructions, and intentionally ran the program.

They are only claiming these things are rogue because they got caught and they see this absurd claim as a way to avoid liability.

If I wrote a worm, tested it on my local network despite knowing that by design it could escape that local network and cause real damage, and then it did exactly that, no prosecutor, judge, or jury will let me off the hook when I claim I only intended to test it on the local network.

I would love to see the AGENTS.md for this thing. . .

That is bullshit. You expect me to believe someone on slashdot has multiple computers? What type of nerd site do you think this is?

The department will ensure that only approved donors are allowed to provide AI services.

At present, no. I've done a number of experiments with LLMs' capabilities with generating fiction, and while they are impressive for a beginner writer -- because fo the lack of spelling and grammar mistakes, they are nowhere near being able to write competent fiction.

This is because they don't model reader or character minds, they're based on word probabilities, like a predictive text keyboard. The engineers can compensate for for this to a surprising degree by feeding it data to recognize specific situations (e.g. the car wash is 100 feet from my driveway; should I drive or walk?). But this is turd-polishing.