Talk shows have been exempt from the equal time law right up until 2026.

Not quite true....

NEWS shows are exempt.....talk shows and other entertainment shows most decidedly are not exempt.

Ostrogoths or Visigoths?

and destroyed multiple fields of STEM research

Interesting claim....

Can you give me a list of / citations of such?

I am sure you know this and are just trying to shit on the editors, as one does on /.; but here, use this in case you didn't know: https://xcancel.com/_lyraaaa_/...

Geez there seems to be a lot of rage about the FCC potentially enforcing a law LONG on the books for broadcast TV to give equal time to political candidates on both sides of the fence, especially during an election year....

If he wants the Dem.....let him also schedule the Rep. candidate, maybe both on the same show...eh?

Because real punishment is only for brown people. Corporations are the whitest white people.

ROTFLMAO....

OH man, you got me with that one. If you really believe this type of shit, you are REALLY gone over the deep end my friend.

I guess all those non-white business owners that have incorporated are all secret undercover white nationalists.....hahaha.

Man, what a vivid and exciting imagination you have there...

You pull a trigger with intent, and someone dies. That doesn't mean you intended to kill a person. The entire chain of events are evaluated to determine if you committed murder or manslaughter

Or...self defense...that's one of the more important ones there that you forgot.

HTH.

I wish someone would make a DSLR that was compact and as easy to use as a phone. I'd be interested in that. Fixed lens would be okay, I'm not going to carry a second one anyway. Even just a USB dongle that used the phone for all the processing and for the view screen.

DSLRs are old tech...go for a modern mirrorless camera.

Go take a look at the Fuji compact mirroless cameras they even have a few fixed lens offereings that might suit your use case...give them a look.

I'll likely be getting the iPhone 18 Pro Max....in either 1 or 2 TB configuration.

I"m currently on the iPhone 12 Pro Max and the better life is starting to get a bit weak and the electronics are starting to show age a bit....I want to be able to shoot RAW and such on it for video...so, it's about time for me.

As you can tell, these phones last me a LONG time, so I drop some cash....but over time It seems worth it to me. An extra $100 or so? No big deal.

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.

The actual post is behind a login wall, but I don't see from the BBC article that he's even advocating any action. Is he demanding the immediate shutdown of the data centres? Raids on the labs? Coordinated global action to impound and destroy the equipment? Life imprisonment for anybody found training large neural networks? Rogue researchers declared hostis humani generis? There's no mention of it.

That's what I'd be advocating at the very least. Then the question of whether to take direct action personally on top of that would be one of practicality - can I lay my hands on the right equipment, how can I do the most effective damage, do I have access to high value targets, will it be dramatic enough to frighten new recruits away from joining the industry, will others be inspired to follow my example, should I take the time first to form a team for more extensive action, that kind of thing. It wouldn't be a question of whether it should happen, only one of whether those are the right tactics. Yes, in all probability I'd decide I wasn't personally cut out for terrorism or assassination, but not everybody would decide so. It would be a reasonable choice in the circumstances.

If the expected bodycount from the operation of this industry over the next ten years was approximately eight hundred billion, then that would make AI researchers the single most dangerous group of human beings that has ever existed. The National Socialist German Workers' Party, previous title holders for the worst people ever, probably didn't kill even a tenth as many as this man says he expects AI firms to kill in roughly the same timescale. That is the comparison that would frame my thinking about AI researchers and what we should do with them, if I believed what he says he believes.

And I just don't see that kind of thing coming up in these conversations. People calmly and academically discuss their probability estimates as if it's a question of pure theory, not the imminent destruction of all humanity. If they really believed what they say, there would certainly by now be AI Luigis everywhere, data centres would be burning, and people would be quitting the industry all over the world for their own safety. That simply isn't happening. So I don't believe they actually do think that this outcome is likely. Actions speak louder than words, and their actions say they don't believe a word of it.

... then I would be demanding that every single person involved in the AI industry be rounded up and shot. All of them. My former boss, my coworkers, our competitors, all of them. I would be advocating a world in which is was worse to be found with LLM weights on your computer than to be caught with the worst possible kind of CSAM.

But apparently the idea that his former employer might literally kill literally everybody in just ten years' time isn't that big a deal for this guy. Go into the office one day and take a Second Amendment approach to as many of the frontier research team as possible? No... let's just whine about it on the internet!

Which is why I'm not at all convinced he believes this. If he believed that, this action is too small a response. Nothing short of Butlerian jihadism is an appropriate response, if you actually believe this.