There's a reasonably good correlation between bigfoot sightings and bears being present. So don't just dismiss it as hallucinations, but consider misidentification.

Tell that to McDonalds.

You are wrong. Several reporters and columnists have been important voices in the past. But quite possibly not this decade.

You're too cynical. Plenty of Slashdot readers are fans of Musk, and Slashdot it small enough these days that I doubt Musk would bother.

Musk has done good things. I really appreciate the way the Tesla pushed electric car development, and SpaceX has done good things. But those aren't recent...and even back then I wouldn't have wanted to work for him or live under his control.

However that's not what this case is about. But I hope they both lose.

If you really want safety you don't train your AI on the internet. Internet chat is where people say what they feel like without worrying about repercussions. That's not a good source of training data...except for learning not to trust what people say.

Of the two, I distrust Altman less than I distrust Musk. OTOH, I *think* Musk has become less competent than Altman. Not that that's really relevant to the case. The ideal result would be Musk being put in jail for contempt of court...and held there until he managed to make an honest statement of the case. And for OpenAI to be turned into a non-profit.

It was NEVER a piece of open software. The name itself was a lie. And that tells you all you need to know about those controlling it.

Also, the larger companies are more likely to update their own equipment. (Yeah, not always. Sigh.) But I was more thinking of small devices, often embedded, that aren't usually updated.

Not for ages. Less than a week. For many, that's not time enough to get the patch.

OTOH, it's a local vulnerability, so many systems aren't affected. I've got one that hasn't been hooked up to the internet in well over a month, and it won't be affected until the next time it's hooked up. (I may do a reinstall before then.)

It really depends on *exactly* how you define "conscious". I don't believe that there's general agreement. The agreement is along the lines of "I know it when I see it", but different people are looking at different things...and some of the things are not observables.

FWIW, I believe that AIs are slightly conscious, but I believe the same thing about thermostats. They react it a circumstance in a manner designed to maintain homeostasis. To me that's one of the signs of consciousness. (Don't overread this. Not all consciousness attempts to maintain homeostasis. But to do so demonstrates a minimal level of consciousness.) This comes out of a definition of consciousness sort of like "Something that preceives it's current situation, evaluates it, and then attempts to alert it in a non-random direction.", where "non-random" is used rather than preferred, because I'm separating that preference from consciousness.

The Democrat candidates were bad also, just not *as* bad. And I feel they intentionally threw the last election, which with Trump running makes them nearly traitors.

Well, Germany (at least occasionally) used coal for cars during WWII. I *think* it was coal->methane, but I don't really know the details.

"Earn" is really tricky to define. I pretty much agree with you, but have to consider "earn" an undefined term. I can point to some instances and say "That person is earning his wages", but others can reasonably disagree. And I can think of many people as underpaid, but others will definitely disagree.

Perhaps they'll ask Musk to vet them.

That's what the laws say. The administration has been known to ignore them.

That said, it's actually a reasonable idea. Anthropic and OpenAI both seem to feel that their latest models are too powerful to be released indiscriminately, so.... But there's no legal authority. Well, except the "interstate clause", which can be interpreted to control nearly anything.