> "the agency had been directed not to alert the voting machine company if it uncovered flaws"

There it is folks. Only one reason you decide NOT to secure the voting machines for your own country.

What I know about Flock is the police are stalking their exes with it, innocent families are being held at gunpoint due to faulty data, and there's cameras in a children's gym/swimming pool that executives are checking out. Oh and ICE is being granted access they shouldn't have so they can detain anyone brown with a spanish accent.

What kind of progress is it they're trying to make here? Because it sounds like progress toward 1930's Germany.

Doesn't matter how big it is, either you're securing it or you're not. If you're saying "because it's big they didn't need to secure it", I highly disagree. It's a bank. Security should be the first thing they care about

They basically admitted that they had done absolutely zero security work before. You can't possibly have that many *real* vulnerabilities internally if you're doing basic security work regularly

Of course the CEO wouldn't possibly fire tons of people to save money because the company is losing money. No no. And they would never lie about the reason they were firing people. Never. It's just that they are now super advanced AI users who have figured out magic prompts the rest of us haven't. No need for humans, the models are perfect, the existing workers are now super muktitaskers. That's all.

They're threats from humans. Humans decide to use the AI to spy on you. Humans decide to replace your job with AI. Protections for human workers should exist without needing the word "AI" in it.

"requiring operators of AI chatbots to perform risk assessments before rolling them out" - Again, wrong target. Humans need to *use the tools carefully*. A knife is sharp because the knife needs to be sharp to be useful. Don't blunt the knife; require the user to be careful with it.

Having a kill switch on AI is like having a kill switch on the internet. You're missing the forest for the trees if you think that's a solution.

By this time next year we will all be wiped out by the nukes sent by a man with dementia and a political party who value obedience over self-preservation.

It was nice chatting with you all.

AI is a tool. Like a hammer, or a nail gun, or a flamethrower, or bleach/acid, etc. We don't stop developing those tools because they're dangerous. We simply require people use them in a safe, responsible way, because they're very useful tools, and it's not hard to secure them.

If you stop connecting your AI agent to the internet, there goes that risk. if you stop connecting it to things that can cause damage, there goes another risk. It's not rocket science.

Is this may piss enough people off that we get more independent film and tv, and less remakes and superhero movies. The problem is the financing, and how bloated the industry has gotten. I think we need to rely now on students to make shoestring budget stuff and hopefully that encourages more independent financing. Publish it online only. The audience and tech are there.

Always remember that a corporation never has your interests at heart. It only cares about the stock price and profits. Any actions it takes are in service of those two things.

AI is not going to end the world. Stupid fucking humans who believe anything they read are going to end the world. If it wasn't AI it would be "information" gathered by a nutjob in Trump's cult.

That this guy was right, and SkyNet is going to come online and kill humanity.

And he left the company and didn't do jack shit to stop it.

The big AI labs are now officially colluding on making AI seem scarier to justify a higher IPO and keep the models from getting "too smart". This way they can milk the improvements over a longer period of time and keep charging way too much money. Also a good reason politically to suppress Chinese models that are "not as safe". Protectionism here we come

This solves a lot of problems:

- Since AI can't be copyrighted, its later use shouldn't be prohibited. You can use the results of the AI you paid for, for whatever, including distillation. Trademark law still applies, ToS against abuse still applies, there's just no preventing people from taking it and using it for something competing.
- Distillation makes open weights more powerful, competing with the frontier labs.
- The frontier labs thus won't make as much money, which means building thousands of datacenters. So we stop the onslaught of datacenter building.
- Less power concentrated in a single company's hands, which means we have more legal and political control over AI.
- We gain the benefits of the competition of open weight and other AI companies that distill. Competition reduces cost, increases efficiency, increases consumer choice.

The question is, can a company legally restrict people from using the *result* of a given product, for use in some other product? Since the output of AI is not copyrightable, my not-a-laywer opinion is, you can't restrict its use.

We still have nukes so we're mostly fine on safety.

The bigger issue is batteries. No matter who's making the car, if it's battery powered, China controls it. If we don't advance our own battery manufacturing then we will remain a stone age backwater.