I always figured that people who genuinely believed their employers were likely to kill literally everybody in the near future might burn down a bit more than that, but so far it's mostly been tweets

Cognitive dissonance of a level that can't be reasoned out of a person because reason was not employed to get them there.

Or the more likely explanation is so many people across parties and countries are complicit and will be made to look bad so it's in the interest of the "esptein class" to keep them hidden. We've already seen several indications of this being true. With consequences. Just not so much in the US.

The consensus of every non-hysterical, not on the loser's payroll ai researcher saying LLMs are a dead end towards true AGI.

Having to poke through an about: page and find the thing to toggle to turn off this specific AI feature but not that one, and knowing they'd change it on you a couple of releases later, never filled me with confidence.

One switch in a readily discoverable location in the settings menu and it's all gone? Just the job, killed it now on the laptop and the mobile both.

Oh, so you're just a typical internet tough guy who makes assumptions about everything and everyone due to lack of actual real world experience. Get a life.

You "noticed" that? I found it to be not well supported at all so it wasn't a consideration. How do you know what you're asserting here? It wasn't in evidence in what was presented for this discussion.

If you want to make an argument at least pick the idiot reporter that started following someone in their car. Because that is something we have first hand evidence for in this story.

Whether you do or don't, it's pretty obvious you support this because your "argument" boils down to semantics and obviously false separation of government and private companies (as if the government can't stop them, but then buys data from them). You're not worth spending any more time on as it's clear you've made your mind up.

Guess who else used to be a democrat?

Also from the article context it's pretty clear the flock employees are being trained to make false reports with specific phrases "might be armed" and "harassing" when neither are true. Just read what was said about people going around the preimeter of their property. It's laughably false with just the right amojnt of weasel words and possibility of interpertation to not be an obviously false report. I'm so tired of that style of weasel language. It's painfully obvious what's going on and one has to be lobotomized or a bootlicker to support it.

"Privacy in a public place" is not what's being asked for. The concept of "not having privacy in public" is completely and totally outdated and different now that you can be passivley tracked by a network of cameras and software in a way that used to take a warrant and significant amount of law enforcement officers. This now happens all the time, without any action on the part of law enforment or flock, just by the nature of the system. Again, without a warrant Without even resonable suspicion or probably cause. To be called up on demand for any reason and without a warrant. Do you understand the difference?

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.