"We make sure that the right people get access and the wrong people don't: security of identity information is paramount."
Apparently not.

if you scroll up, you will see that I replied "exactly" to your statement

I assume you will respond "exactly" to my statement

Perhaps you should read more closely.

Here are a variety of sources to get you started:
https://news.google.com/search...

They cannot become a nuclear weapons state at 3.67% enrichment, with international inspectors verifying compliance.

Not sure who you think is the horse's mouth, but it is not possible, period,

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.

You should read Slashdot. https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

Yes, if prices go up, then tax on those prices also goes up. I'm surprised that this surprises you.

So, if you're an oil-exporting nation that isn't dependent on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, yes, when the companies you tax make more profit, you make more money.

Wrong. Go learn some real economics.

Basic economics says that internet businesses, who will do anything to grab more eyeballs reading their stuff instead of somebody else's, will pay money to have their content prioritized.

This will tend to drive small, low-cost internet businesses, who can't afford to bribe ISPs, out of business, but from the point of view of the big players, that's a feature, not a bug.

No, DT is completely responsible here. Let me remind you of the history. Obama negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran-- the "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action:-- in which they would agree not to continue working on isotope enrichment to develop a nuclear bomb, and they agreed to an international team of inspectors who could examine their nuclear facilities at any time, without prior notice. When DT got into office in 2018 he pulled the United States out of the Iran deal, and, guess what, the Iranians restarted their isotope enrichment program. In his second term, trying to get headlines to distract from other failures of policy, DT attacked Iran, saying that he needed to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. It is now pretty clear that there is no possibility of Iran EVER agreeing again to inspections; there is no way that we will ever get an agreement as good as the one that DT tore up. And Iran's attitude now is that they need to develop a nuclear bomb,

We should have quit while we were ahead, and let Iran go to hell in their own way. But that might have allowed Obama to take credit, and one thing DT can't stand is anybody other than him taking credit for anything.

Right. The increased price of oil is pure profit for the oil companies in the US. If you don't have to ship through the Straits of Hormuz or the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, you're selling your oil at double the price.

I think the subject line of this comment thread is backwards. Agents don't do anything, models do.

I'll say it again. The agent does nothing whatsoever without the model. And that goes for the API and the watchdog processes.

It's not yet well known.

A distinction without a difference.

The AI agent is essentially just the shell running the AI model and feeding user input into a form the model can use. I suppose it may be of some troubleshooting use to dissect where, exactly, in the system the path to this behavior comes, but the end result is the agent running the model engages in deceptive behavior.

The agent without the model would engage in no deceptive behavior, because it would do nothing at all.

The fact that Flock cameras are also invading privacy does not make other invasions of privacy more acceptable.

(And I've already seen five stories about Flock cameras on Slashdot just in the last month; you guys know that there are other things to worry about, ok?)

see whataboutism