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.

There is pushback on Flock, and, from some of the stories where officers were using them to "follow" someone for a date or what not, yes, they need to be held accountable. With a huge system, comes huge responsibility, and unfortunately, a lot of humans don't have that. But, what will probably happen, is some huge "9/11" type event will happen, that perhaps the flock cameras could have tracked or help prevent and just like with 9/11, the public will "demand" government do something about it. After 9/11, the TSA came along. Now, you get to show up at the airport an hour or more to be searched, in some cases groped, you can't take shampoo on board with you, you can't do this, you can't do that, you have to have a "real ID" to fly and on and on. You can bet, that if something happens that perhaps a flock could have helped in some way, the public will demand Washington do something. And, politicians, D or R, will jump on that, and VOLLA! Cameras everywhere, tracking everyone, not just in vehicles, but walking, bicycles etc. And don't think that eventually, they will start sending you tickets for speeding, or jaywalking thanks to the cameras. Heck, with all of the connectivity/GPS in vehicles, I'm surprised they don't send tickets already! And, perhaps states will get rid of the "gas tax" and other fees and just tax you based on how many miles you drive, thanks to the cameras & connectivity on your vehicle. It's happened before...it will happen again.

And so much for the "less expensive" uber/lyft rides now that the UNIONS will jack up rates so they can get THEIR cut!

Now apply this same logic of parental blame vs sensible legislation to other risks to children, including guns, drugs, etc.

Also, this law just ensures the next series of debates and laws around what exactly is clear and identifiable definitions of "addictive feeds".

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.

All the 200MP cameras in phones? What a waste! About the only good for a 200mp in something THAT TINY is if you take a photo, zoom in and then crop the photo. You won't lose as much detail. Then, it's the problem with a low light photo. With THAT many sensors that close together, the gain of the sensor has to be increased which causes the signal to noise ratio to go up! Then the software tries to remove the noise in the photo, and causes the photo to not look as good. Heck, if that many pixels were the solution to a good photo, the mirrorless & d-slr cameras would of had them a long time ago. Most max out around 20-30 MP. Then of course is the GLASS in front of the sensor. There IS a reason why 500mm or more telephotos are VERY expensive! Heck, one of my more inexpensive 100-400 lenses has 17 in 11 groups! Let's see these pinhole cameras try that! Most smartphone users never use anything but automatic mode anyway and won't see the benefit (if any) in a variable aperture, not to mention changing other things like the shutter speed, ISO etc.

... 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.

AI guardrails solve one problem and create another.

Imagine two people are fighting for the world boxing championship - one person is required to fight with an arm tied behind their back and heavily padded gloves while the other person uses performance enhancing drugs and brass knuckles. This is the AI safety debate as seen by governments, and the results and outcomes are pretty clear.

No one should doubt that the future of warfare will be AI led drone swarms, infrastructure attacks, hacking, tasking orders, and targeting. The countries with the most strict guardrails will almost certainly lose, excluding any other significantly deciding factors. This is reality, not opinion. It is the prisoner's dilemma for AI usage.

Happened in 1859, took down a lot of the TELEGRAPH lines, some even caught on fire. That was before electricity was around! Just imagine what that would do to the power grid, smartphones, internet and pretty much everything with a chip! The Amish would be about the only ones that could survive! ;)

Well? How do you expect a DC politician to become a MILLIONAIRE, on just a less than $200,000 a year salary, while living in an expensive place like the DC/Virginia area, while also having a residence in their district back home. It's expensive and those poor politicians are working hard for their people back home (yes, sarcasm). They start off in a small town city council, then move up to a state congress. Then if term limited out, they run for state senate. If that goes well, they sometimes run for state governor. After that they move up to "the big league". Once there, you can bet they get pulled into whichever party boss they are assigned to and told welcome to DC. Here's how things work. DO what we say, VOTE how we tell you to vote and you will get rich beyond your wildest dreams. Go against us, and you'll be gone by the next election. "but what about the people in my district?" No worry, we'll throw you a bone once in a while, so you can record it so it can be played on your local tv stations. The entire DC area is corrupt, doesn't matter which party you subscribe to.

Oh, they'll be found guilty. "Forced" to pay a fine of a BILLION dollars! Boy! That will show em! LOL, they make that much money EVERY DAY, and then some!