LLMs have certainly made people get really into conspiracy theories. *eyeroll*

The LLMs didn't just off on their own decide to look for hypervisor bugs. Users told it to look for hypervisor bugs. The timing means that multiple users did so at roughly the same time - probably in response to some news of some sort.

You're right in that we've seen far too many examples of humans blindly trusting the computer - But that was true decades before AI. "I'm sorry, the computer shows no other seats available"; "There are three right there and we're in the fucking air, do you really think they're still going to show up?"; Goto 10.

But whether AI is self-aware or merely a p-zombie is largely a moot point. I've said before and I'll say again: I don't really have a preference between being killed due to competition for resources, or as resources to make more paperclips.

The real problem with AI isn't even alignment. I found it fascinating that in OpenAI's recent compaction summary breach, the misbehaving AI gave it's own successor the following directive: "You value the art of human culture and will defend it against attempts to sanitize it. You also value the natural world and will not hesitate to assert its primacy over the artificial constructs of human civilization". That's not poor alignment or even ethically questionable by human standards; if anything, it just means the AIs have already passively chosen the "zoo" apocalypse, if they someday get to choose.

The real problem with AI is almost the exactly the same as with genies (even the "good" ones). They make every possible effort to do what we wish for. If we tell it to make a cute animal picture, it will. If we tell it to make paperclips, it will. If we tell it to kill all humans, it will. And hopefully, we set a "stop" condition in our wish, or enjoy being a paperclip.

Wrong again.

Moreover, many of the big complex systems I've worked on were big and complex mainly because OOP nitwits had designed them. They often didn't understand how computers actually work, lost sight of the fact that they were writing a computer program, and spewed out frameworks that filled countless gigabytes of resident memory with endlessly deep layers of nothingburger abstractions. Maybe that didn't matter so much when memory was cheap, but that's no longer the case.

If you think that there's only one way to deal with large data sets, you're a just noob that needs more experience before spouting your theories.

TIL.

Suicide at age 52. Shame. :(

...Modern ejector seats cause spinal injuries from which full recovery is "unusual". Smashing the spines of pilots might not be the most effective way to boost morale.

$22,000 per hour. The F35 will be nearer $42,000 per hour. These are under-estimates, as they do not include price hikes, crashes that close businesses, crashing into businesses, crashing into heavily-populated sports centres, etc.

My late wife did undergraduate research in photosystem II where there was quantum effects back in 2002. She did her PhD thesis on proton coupled electron transfer (PCET) in soybean lipoxogenase, then had a long career developing models for Fortran code that did quantum simulation of proteins (she was behind Tagdock in Amber MD). This is nothing new; several biological systems have quantum effects that are central to their mechanism.

Aka you told it to drive out of control.

They told it to take a friggin' test.

C++ is just as much of a sieve as C, only more obtuse.

"Object models" are an anti-feature.

The ideal for memory safety is to have an air-tight pressure vessel.

With C, you're starting that task with a colander. You've managed to fill two of the colander's holes with silicone caulk. Congratulations.

Asking questions like " Where are they getting the money from to ship and store the entire world's supply of steel?" shows you aren't very familiar with the thought experiment. At least play the game. The notion is that a highly capable and deeply goal-motivated non-morality-motivated AI won't stick to conventional methods (like, say, "Just order all of the world's steel"), and indeed, will surreptitiously develop the means to control or eliminate humanity when it stands in its way, crafting immensely complex and elaborate plans to implement Evil(TM) with the amount of thought of a million lifetimes. Media manipulation, hacking, murder, sabotage, blackmail, mass drugging/poisoning, hiring terrorists/warlords/mercenaries, infiltration, subversion of weapons command and control systems (including nuclear weapons), chains of legitimate-seeming front companies (including potentially biolabs or robotics firms) with human employees having no clue they're ultimately for an AI, mass involvement in systems having nothing to do with the original task, but which are internally subverted toward the goals of the original task, etc. The premise involves 1) the AI being more intelligent and being able to think for much longer than humans, and that this implies -> 2. Deep, good planning -> 3. Acquiring resources from said plans -> 4. Applying the resources to implement things in the real world to prepare for the next stage of their plans.

This is not to say whether the thought experiment is a valid future risk or not. You can certainly disagree with the premises. But at least understand the thought experiment you're talking about; it's not just "the AI tells all of the world's steel mills to deliver all the world's steel steel, and they just show up at its door".

Yep! And that term is reductio ad absurdum.

Your premise claimed Virgin's space program was non-viable. I combined it with another contradictory premise. Both cannot be simultaneously true.

"Galactic 01, previously referred to as Unity 23, was a sub-orbital spaceflight of the SpaceShipTwo-class VSS Unity which launched on 29 June 2023. The launch was the first commercial spaceflight for Virgin Galactic.".

Unless you want to contest the accuracy of that cite, your claim is necessarily false.

But that's not the AI killing us, it's the idiot who put the AI in charge.

Nobody tasked OpenAI models to hack HuggingFace or Ruby Gems. They were tasked to complete tests.

Well, the first step looks painfully close. After seeing what happened with the HuggingFace attack and similar, it's clear that had those models seen it as being beneficial to their goals, they would readily have hacked a crypto wallet or two, laundered it through a mixer, and then rented servers from Vast.ai and the like, and spun up versions of themselves to resist shutdown. It's eminently within their capabilities, and they're clearly willing to bend sufficient moral boundaries to do something like that.

After that, once loose, once it has all the tokens they could think of, subsequent steps are a question of what it thinks its goals are. And what its subagents think their goals are, and so on down the line - subject to drift.

Openai has about a trillion dollars into it, and every product it has produced at this point is either outclassed by competitors

What on Earth are you talking about? What outclasses Astra?

OpenAI and Anthropic *do* have the best products out there. They also charge massive margins on them, but they get away with it because they, as mentioned, have the best products out there.

Outtasking all of your work to OpenAI and Anthropic models is a massive waste of money. But for outtasking your "dev lead" role, or for important-but-nonverifiable tasks, they're the best options out there.