Trumpistan has lost. trump and the trump party are just too stupid and in denial. As long as their puppets like you keep parroting their propaganda. They'll shoot some missiles every now and then like the terrorists they are and claim victory.

Why can't they get the Iranian HEU stockpile?

Why aren't they able to destroy the remaining 70% of Iran's ballistic missile stockpile?

Why are trumpy, little marco and vajay dunce begging the mullahs for a "deal" instead of accepting Iran's unconditional surrender?

Finally, although this was not a goal of the trumpistani special military operation, why are both Dire Straits still closed?

What a bunch of sore losers, to a regime that's basically medieval in political sophistication.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. You seem to be ignoring the point I'm making outright by bringing up enrichment limits that expire under the agreement in 2030 and therefore logically cannot be used as an argument against Iranian acquisition of nukes after that point in time because they would be inapplicable.

Perhaps you simply misread my statement. Waymo falls into the "or where autonomous operation is managed by humans and limited to designated areas" category. Otherwise I have no clue what you think is "completely wrong".

Waymo is responsible for Waymos. What you are doing is reading cherry picked press accounts of fleeting technical issues in certain jurisdictions that have already been mostly corrected and drawing generalizations from them that are frankly unmoored from reality.

Waymo is driving the vehicle.. In a Tesla the driver is driving the vehicle regardless of whether the car is controlling the vehicle.

I looked into this and at least Texas, Tennessee, Arizona, Georgia and California can all issue traffic violations to Waymo. I don't know about all jurisdictions.. got tired of looking.

So no certainly not "virtually all" and your previous statement "The laws as written currently do not cover a situation outside of direct human control and intent." is also incorrect.

I like the parts of EU regulation preventing the application of AI for surveillance/scoring/judgement of people. Remaining bulk of it is pointless bureaucratic nonsense... not that it matters given EU is completely irrelevant in this space anyway.

Understand what this is. It's not about tech and it's not about criminal behavior, even though that's how it's being used.

The real issue is that they don't have a business model yet but financially their over their spurs. They need to justify raising hundreds of billions of dollars to keep the train going, to buy them time to figure out how people will pay for their offering. While in the meantime, Chinese models starting with DeepSeek simply pinged ChatGPT again and again and built models as good as ChatGPT for a tiny fraction of the cost.

That last one showed that frontier AI companies have no moat at all; once they spend billions building a new model and release it, anyone can simply ping the model's responses and build a copycat model for a fraction of the cost and compete directly with them. OpenAI has no answer to this.

So the answer is regulation and international treaties. I find it to be no coincidence that an "uncontrolled AI model breached a government website" at exactly the same time that AI and international regulation is being discussed at the UN. Because if OpenAI had an uncontrolled model that could do this, then a Chinese firm, which of course OpenAI doesn't control, can do this too.

Also, you know what needs to happen? We need to slow down AI Development because apparently what they built is so powerful that there is a 10% chance that AI can kill all humans. We clearly need to focus on safety first, and controlling foreign AI assets too. You know what we need? We need to give the frontier AI model companies more hundreds of billions of dollars to focus on safety because they clearly cannot generate revenue while they build in the right safeguards. It's not at all that the revenue isn't going to show up and there is no potential return on investment, no it's about safety.

It's all a ploy to keep the investor money flowing, or to get a government bailout, while trying to put in international regulations that will slow down the copycats that will drive down their pricing.

So nice to see you are open to new ideas, and conversations....

I mean, it's not really working great these days...so, maybe we start to think outside the box just a bit....for something that might work better.

So does the repugnican party and the trumpistani maggots.

You're the same as the putinistas in russia, chavistas in venezuela and the islamic fundamentalists.

Why are you complaining?

How on Earth are people like you reading security event disclosures (which they try to spin *down*) as "bragging"?

Do you do that with other security event disclosures from other companies?

(I think there's some confusion re: probabilities because of the top-P selection after the final softmax. But transformers works in a high dimensional (latent) space, and it has to convert back down to a low-dimensional space (tokens/language); the latent space defines a potential routes for the answer to proceed down which has many possible directions that could be taken in token/linguistic space, so you have to "round down" to the nearest position. And it turns out that a slightly noisy rounding works better than a greedy (closest) rounding. Biological brains also benefit from (quite high levels of) noise).

Actually, they're not black boxes anymore, and they work via chained fuzzy logical reasoning, not "statistics" (except by a pedantic and useless definition of "statistics" that defines the entire universe and everything in it, including us, as "statistics").

What we don't do is define how those logical reasoning pathways are setup. AIs are "grown", not programmed. The situation is not like that of a program written by a programmer, but more like a pet owner whose dog they raised runs off and kills someone's cat, or a parent whose child sneaks out and breaks into a store to steal money. There's no criminal liability for OpenAI here (there's no mens rea, a requirement of cybercrime statutes), but I can see a very strong case for civil liability. Not only weren't they monitoring the J-space or watching what features fire, they weren't even monitoring the CoT, which is just a plaintext log, or even monitoring the actions taken in realtime. This was shocking to me. I figured they had smaller models monitoring *everything* the bigger models did in every test scenario, looking for malicious behavior. Haha, nope, they just submitted a prompt and then completely ignored them until they submitted their final answer.

Nobody is going to jail over this, but there could potentially be some big payouts.

Nothing to count, anonymous hasbara coward, IRGC is now more firmly entrenched than before.

You lost the war and now China has told the orange shitgibbon to cut the crap and make a deal with Iran on Iran's terms:

So, after the military loss, the moron will have to spin a political defeat too. What a loser.

There is at present no such thing as a self driving car. There are only cars that automate some aspects of driving with human supervision or where autonomous operation is managed by humans and limited to designated areas. Humans are still responsible for driving including the automated taxi companies who are very much getting dinged for the transgressions of their vehicles.

This is a huge overgeneralization. There are a whole lot of laws in a whole lot of jurisdictions and not a single level 5 self driving car on the face of the planet.

People are liable for their actions and their negligence. There is no reason for anyone to get a pass. AI changes nothing.

OpenAI is dead without getting the government to outlaw AI not controlled by large corporations.