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.

If they just (officially) put them in a rack friendly format and the odd server level utility or two, they'd be awesome. And Apple would shift a lot (more) units. Rails of course, would be a premium option.

Didn't say it was. I just said its what a business would do.

If you were worried about being chased by kill bots, go and watch some videos from drone operators in Ukraine. Robots don't need feet for that job.

Business will be economically rational. Stupid, but rational. The effect of the fee will be to just push the barrier for use of the visa higher. Think C-Level.

If there are no local cantidates, then the job will be offshored. To a cheap country. It is not cheaper to train someone locally. It will not help employ a single local cantidate.

There are very, very few jobs at a high technical level that can't be offshored.

- Culture is not important
- Team spirait is not important
- Quality is not important

On the otherhand
- Money is important

The only exceptions would perhaps be some defence work where citizenship and physical location are important. In which case, I am sure there is the appropropriate loophole.

I don't wish harm on anyone. But I hope Karma comes and bites them on the arse bigtime.

Sure. Not seeing something is very useful.

I imagine that this would have two use cases. Firstly the one where it is observing, and this could use all sorts of tricks with timing the observations to match the speed of rotation. Second, there is just having it get to where it needs to be with minimum observation - then, execute when discovery is no longer a problem. (Potentially, slowing down from 25 Hz to zero might give a discoverability window)

Conventional radar should probably pick this up as well, no? As much as a very small, shielded object can be detected.

What?

Isn't increasing shareholder value one of your core beliefs? How else do you get up in the morning?

Next you'll be telling me you don't thrive in a high paced, even changing environment!

In other words, tell them to "Flock Off*?

Or is that "Get the Flock out of here"?

In reality, yes.

According to Hollywood and its accounting practice, it loses more money than exists in the world at this time. In every jurisdiction, simultaneously.

Adam's Starship Bistromath was right in the way that number alter reality. It was only wrong in the form that it took.