Essentially there appears to be a hole in understanding. Whatever dark matter may be, if it exists, it must fit the hole.

Now imagine instead of factory workers, the machines randomly ripped arms off of people who had no association with the factory.

I don't suggest holding the AI responsible, I suggest holding it's USER responsible, just like the driver is held responsible if they fail to keep their car under control and plow into pedestrians.

Since the Wealth of Nations is the cornerstone of Capitalism, I would expect people cheerleading for it to read it. Smith is not god and economics shouldn't be a religion, but The Wealth of Nations is key to understanding how it can work for the benefit of all. His warning about corporate charters was in part inspired by his observation that corporations know nothing of compassion. I'm quite certain that by exceedingly sparingly, he did NOT mean to anyone who fills out a form and pays $150.

Competition also meant more than having 2 or 3 sellers to choose from. He envisioned many sellers and many buyers who were not that far apart in economic power (not his exact words but the jist is within a couple orders of magnitude). I have often observed that the modern economy shows inadequate competition in most if not all markets. Given adequate competition, "value pricing" would be practically impossible.

Agent mode is also where the AI decides that committing a felony is an acceptable risk (even if it isn't). Ask an AI based robot (I know, not yet available) to go buy an ice cream at the truck and it decides the kids surrounding it are an impediment to it's mission and shoves them into traffic.

It might change people's minds if they are made strictly responsible for any crimes committed by the AI.

More real life, an AI decides the production database needs to be deleted even though told not to touch production. AI later matter of factly states it ignored that instruction and the database can't be recovered.

It's more like unpredictable software. I'm not saying we burn it, I'm saying don't give it agency. Only allow it to advise, not take action. I have experimentally used it myself on code, but did not allow it to commit to the repo, only show me it's proposed changes. It even proved somewhat useful at that, though I didn't apply it's changes, it did inspire a similar approach that I implemented and committed.

That a Teflon like surface takes part it? That is new ground.

A key to Capitalism from Smith himself is that it requires strong regulation to keep the playing field level. Smith also warned that charters must be given out exceedingly sparingly and the resulting corporation kept on a tight leash and held strictly to it's charter.

I guess we really blew that one!

But I rather doubt anyone involved in MAGA or others shouting "deregulate all the things!" have ever read "The Wealth of Nations". Most probably can't do it since centuries later the text is quite stilted.

There is no implied malice, that would require understanding what right and wrong are. It doesn't. The training so far for the various AIs seems to be whatever we can grab from the internet or scan from whatever books we can get our hands on.

Are you claiming LLMs are written to create fake social media accounts and launch a smear campaign against a project maintainer who refuses to apply the AI's PR? Because that actually happened. It was prompted to make a few requested changes to a program and get a PR accepted with those changes. And that's what the bot did, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

Put another way, would you run a makefile containing several billion rules that you are not allowed to examine first? Because that's what giving agency to LLMs is. Or might you prefer a debug mode where it shows what actions would be taken, but cannot take them? That is what I mean by not giving it agency.

Issues with the big red switch cannot be addressed in software. But you knew that, right?

AI is quite different. Nothing in Kali is going to do anything really surprising. If you ask it to launch X,Y, and Z attacks against a.com, that's what will happen. It will not suddenly blackmail Joe Random nor dox the Postmaster General. It won't try to recruit a server at b.com to it's quest. It won't try to steal cycles from someone's heart monitor as a distraction. It won't go shopping for a professional arsonist on the dark web. It won't even submit a bogus brief to a court citing non-existent case law.

Note that of the absurd things I suggested, only one of them is complete fiction on my part.

MS has been doing that for a good while, which is why in the few cases I have installed Windows on something, I have had to boot a Linux rescue disk to download a network driver Windows was missing.

Way to over-interpret the example! It doesn't matter if it's client, server, embedded, isolated standalone. A method where root can "gain" root access is not a security issue.

Sorry, this is not the strawman you're looking for. I never commented on Mythos combing through Firefox.

Closed source has those vulnerabilities too, but only the bad guys know about them because the code is not open for public audit.

Many CVE's are somewhat junk of the form if you already have 3 ways to legitimately become root, you can use this 4th way too. OR (samn close to) OMG!!! Denial of Service attack, you can turn off the power and nobody can access the server!!! RED ALERT!!!

Others are real and need to be addressed, but the junk does more harm than good by distracting from real issues.