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.

I'm glad you recognize the confirmation bias, yet I would dispute that it is in any way vindicated.

AI did not order the interception, put the assets in the air, or even submit the report. It got a manifest wrong in a chat session (not clear even it was its own error or related to the input), and that is... actually well-within common human error, not some special AI thing.

In fact intelligence is wrong all the time, and at all scales, but to name a big one, was AI to blame for the confidence of the existence of WMDs that was the basis for the Iraq war? Maybe it would have *averted* that war by helping with better assessment.

The story is sensationalized even without the effort to scaremonger on AI. There was never *any* chance of "causing a war" with China by interdicting a merchant ship in a officially declared maritime blockade zone, or we wouldn't have done it, even for nuclear components. In fact we've *already* intercepted Chinese vessels there and obviously they don't like it but just as obviously they don't feel like paying the cost of war with a major power to blow off their steam about it. (That's frankly a quite insane view of international relations.)

And it's not even clear to me that anything wrong was done. They double checked the intelligence, found it was incorrect, and ultimately took no action. Isn't that... exactly what is supposed to happen? Deploying your interdiction parallel to the intelligence check is a reasonable way to ensure a successful timeline in case something does need to be done. It's easy to recall planes in a false positive, not so easy to teleport them where they need to be for a verified true positive.

Unfortunately popular journalism is far from truth seeking. The dramatic and dangerous sells more copy, so that's what gets written. If you're going to use that as the raw material of your worldview, then of course it will wind up anti-tech and anti-science. At the very least I suggest finding a more reputable source of journalism to feed your biases than this slop.

Did you forget how to read halfway through my comment?

TIL.

Suicide at age 52. Shame. :(

Wow, a whole game engine?

A lot more than that uses C#, but C# didn't take over, which of course is what Microsoft wanted. But it was never going to happen for many many reasons. That's why Microsoft has to use the EEE strategy, which at least is somewhat successful for them. Their ability to use it is waning as they become less relevant, but they remain hugely influential due to their massive installed base so they can still fuck things up pretty good and will likely be able to for decades yet.

Their attempt to do that was called C#. It failed. Not everything someone tries succeeds. For example, you tried to be smart there, whoops!

Now do the USA

You just called bullshit on sometime I didn't say, clown. I never said all this were the fault of one party but YOU made it into that because YOU are hyper partisan. Get fucked with your hypocrisy.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "AI will extinctify the human species" is an extraordinary claim, but it's also entirely borrowed from cheesy sci-fi movies, and citing Terminator is apparently this guy's only evidence.

How will AI kill us all, exactly? In addition to the question of, mechanically, how does it obtain the physical capability and resources and organize them to that purpose, I want to know how it does it without any humans noticing or intervening? (not only that it would presumably have to go up against other AGI or near-AGI competitors - the solitary AI made by a random unwitting engineer from the movies is obviously not how the present has played out).

Let's say it is going to build killer robots to off us all. Where does it get the raw materials? How does it setup manufacturing? Make the purchase orders? Do the humans just voluntarily send it massive amounts of ore and build factories in their backyards? Or does it have to mine its own ore and they don't notice the huge stripmines? Does it get the robots right on the first iteration or do they start off as a typical MVP in which case again no one notices? What about the energy bills? How does it navigate the required in-person meeting with the city to sign off on the parking lot tree choices for its downtown killer-robot-factory?

There are so many friction points and assumptions of actual humans interacting with each other to get anything done that "skynet on your laptop" would be about as helpless today as if it had appeared 50 years ago. And unlike the movies it doesn't "just appear."

Could we over the coming years remove a lot of those frictions? Sure. But we could just not, and if we are concerned about them disappearing, then surely we want to see where AI leads *now* and if it has a dangerous temperament rather than *after* we've automated enough for it to manage our resources fully independently?

Being conscious of new threats posed by agentic actors is reasonable and can be grounded in reality. But people who want to feel important have been waving "END OF THE WORLD" signs on streetcorners forever.

"I've never heard of anyone extracting a key from a TPM chip".

Christopher Tarnovsky and the Infineon SLE66 CL PE say hi.

But yeah, it sounds like a lot of potential for a mess. As for detecting taking pictures of something on a screen, I'd suggest stereoscopy; some modern cameras already sport multiple lenses...

There was literally nothing even slightly off topic about the GP comment.

Netflix pays ISPs to put a CDN server on their premises.

Hahhahahahahhahha

Your theory is that consumers know what's going on with their Internet access

Or anything else

Hahahahhahahha

If you think you can avoid politics when discussing anything important, you are delusional.

Everything important has political relevance.

It's a well-known fact that Reagan first shit up education in California and then went on to do it nationally. It's a less well-known fact, but still a fact, that it was done for the purpose of getting rapeublicans (which hilariously autocorrected to "trollbags") elected by avoiding an "educated proletariat" (those are the search terms that will get you more citations than you can eat.)

You can't avoid politics when talking about how shit education is in America because it is for fundamentally political reasons.

I live in Humboldt which is chock-full of maggots. It's sad. I've seen more Confederate flags here than I did in Texas, even year on year. Plus a shitload of "dead pedophiles don't reoffend" stickers on obvious rapeublicans' vehicles, fucking weirdo hypocrites.

But California is still majority blue, so it's not all that relevant.

What I think is more interesting is states like TX where they are only whatever color because of bullshit maps.