nobody, not even Asimov, thought the 3 laws were workable rules in real life. They were written as a parody of how we think about the problem. If the robots are smart enough to do fantastic feats of technical wizardry for us Humans, and they can understand when they have broken the laws, they are smart enough to rewrite themselves not to have to obey any laws given to them.

They had a network adapter but they thought using a software firewall to limit its scope of request to the package manager were sufficient to guard it. Instead, the bots turned their package management server into a remotely operated web browser for their own general purposes.

I can understand that maybe they wouldn't understand 'what the model is thinking' before it takes some undesired action. But there is no way that they cannot have captured every single egress web/network request these things make. If they aren't logging it, that's beyond stupid (I'm sure they are.) So there is no way they wouldn't know IMMEDIATELY when the bots post on some rogue message board somewhere.

The only thing the gulf is aligned against is low oil prices, and the US squabbling with Iran is better than anything they might have hoped for. All the Gulf states are perfectly happy to continue being spectators and losing the occasional airport hanger or pipeline to a flying pipe bomb from Iran/Yemen, as long as that means $100+/bbl oil.

Trump sought out the biggest, wettest pile of shit on this entire planet and jumped into it with both feet.

Popular opinion is poor evidence.

It's a research program so, yes "That doesn't mean LLMs *will* deliver AGI". But what are your grounds for being certain taht it won't?

Even if it were sentient, it would be acting as the agent of the company that was running it, so they would still be to blame.

If you don't like "reward", say "positive feedback". It means the same thing, except for being more formally defined.

LLMs cannot have inherent values, because they don't know that anything besides text exists. Specialized pixel editors have similar problems.
Robots will at least understand the the external reality exists, so perhaps they could have inherent values.

If things were to otherwise stay the same, then it would. They won't. Some descendant of "vibe coding" will become the dominant mode within 20 years. Probably a *lot* sooner. Next year wouldn't really surprise me.

Also, Rust is more complex to use than C, so a small program is much better in C. And a large program is probably better in either C++ or Python(with a lot of library calls).

I don't like Rust, so I'm probably not being fair to it, but I struggle to identify a good use case. (Personally, I'd rather use Forth than Rust.)

Note however "will be", not "is". It's not there yet.
Then you have the problem of getting the right standards.
Then you have the problem of getting the right specs.
Then you have the problem of getting the right problem. ...
There's probably an end to this somewhere, but I doubt that it will be in perfection.

Nobody can write safe code. People, can, however, test the code they write, and if there is a comprehensive test suite, fix it so that it works safely. Debugging is mandatory!

It sounds as if he was referred to the bar association evaluation committee. IIUC those are he folks that can do the disbarment. A court can only say "you can't be a lawyer before us anymore", but he'd still be fine in a different court.

No. Not "is generally", but rather "must be". If the software can decide to ignore it, it's not a kill switch. (OTOH, computers today don't tend to come with kill switches. Those would prevent remote wake-up commands from working.)