Dunno why everyone thinks Terminator is prophetic. If you want to see robots hunting people down, there's plenty of footage of that coming out of the Ukraine already, and none of it involves humanoid robots. If you want to know what getting hunted down by a robot will be like in the future, imagine a swarm of mosquitoes coming for you, except instead of trying to extract a little blood, they're trying to inject a little cyanide. No self-respecting military is going to buy expensive human-sized killbots when miniaturized ones do the job better and quicker at 1/1000th of the price.

For a small model (think handwriting recognition, say, 6x8 pixels), it is actually possible to construct a formal proof that the model will correctly identify digits and characters correctly. However, it is usually more expedient just to test with a large sample of typical inputs. In such cases, an error ratio smaller than what a human would produce, and the low risk of failure makes this approach acceptable.

However, for LLMs and models of the size typically used in self driving, it is practically impossible to verify the model (think heat death of the universe) using formal methods. The best that one can do is identify the desired outcome and perform statistical tests to determine the error percentage. When it comes to applications such as criminal sentencing, self driving, and applicant selection where mistakes expose the model user to substantial liability, AI may be more appropriate in an assistive role where a human must be in the decision loop. Even so, there are yet a large number of AI applications where mediocre performance (i.e. good enough, with occasional errors) is in fact good enough to justify the cost savings.

It is programs like the one proposed here which represent a structural danger to society: because of doctrines like sovereign immunity, a state which certifies a model as "safe" does not actually have any responsibility for the harm caused by such a representation. That is, a company which relies on the state's safety certification can avoid liability for harm caused by the model, and the state has neither the responsibility nor the incentive to test the model in an intellectually honest and formally rigorous way. Thus, the cost of testing the model is borne by the state, the liability for mistakes is borne by the public at large, and the disproportionate profit such an arrangement facilitates accrues to the benefit of private corporations.

Guaranteeing that AI won't cause harm is a matter of making sure it can't control anything that could cause harm. Think air gap. Think novelties, jokes, etc... There are many good uses for AI that literally can't harm someone, but I strongly suspect NY intends something a bit more nefarious and needs the imprimatur of an official state agency to secure the trust of the public.

We need new techniques that can be applied to this new kind of system with swarms of autonomous agents acting independently and without control. How can you first detect that they're going to do harm, and how can you prevent them from doing harm?" said Wing. "The beauty of what's being proposed is that this state is committing resources to really light this up."

I know it's old hat to talk about traditional software engineering techniques, especially when there's the taxpayer's purse to loot, but there already exist solutions to these problems. I get it - these folks would rather have someone else pay for their ignorance, but the beauty of AI is that it can be counted on to break in new and novel ways. It's funny when AI swears when autocorrecting texts, but if you should find yourself blown to bits because you let AI control your air defense network, it's hard to blame anyone except yourself.

AI is not some novel type of technology outside the realm of traditional formal proofs and testing regimes. The problem is that even testing conventional systems is expensive, and AI systems even moreso. So, the solution - in the case of New York - is to get the taxpayer to foot the bill (thereby socializing the losses) so that the profits can be privatized. The canard of "public safety" is hung like a sword of Damocles over the public at large so that those who would loot the public purse can do so without arousing the suspicions that they are doing just that.

It is remarkable how much harm can be prevented by autonomous systems when the politically-well connected are held responsible for their failures. Should Black Rock executives find themselves in prison because one of their companies' AI systems accidentally microwaves a kitten (hypothetical example), the necessary corrections will be made post haste. But until that day, we can safely predict that the rich will never miss an opportunity to transfer responsibility from themselves to the public at large, and money from the public at large to themselves.

Was going to say someting similar. It will be like reading reviews for products on company web sites.

"The reason I bought the *insert name of product* was because I heard good things about it. The *insert name of product* has lived up to its expectations. Its *insert product description verbiage from company web site* did what it said it would do, I couldn't be happier. I am so glad I bought *insert name of product*.

No mention of what the product does or how it does it. No feedback on any issues. Just shilling by plopping in the product name and description as much as they can.

What would Iran gain from messing with France?

I'd think Mr. Putin would have more of a motive, since France (along with most of Europe) is supporting his opponent in Ukraine and he seems to be trying to probe their resolve by "accidentally" sending drones into their airspace from time to time.

While he obviously has a huge hard-on for Vlad, he's also effectively told him to fuck off too.

You didn't see him ask Congress before reducing sanctions on Russia after all.

Would you like to try again? The orange goon recently said Russia "has been fine on Ukraine" and "hasn't been doing much" to the country. This as Russia deliberately targets civilians.

That doesn't sound like "fuck off".

While I don't disagree per se that this should be the model, I do wonder which reality you live in where it currently is.

I will not say black is "special" but you cannot simply replace it with another color. There is no function that a male in the US cannot attend wearing black. The only thing a man can wear that's even simpler in its appropriateness for all events is a military uniform.

Things were "as bad as it gets" toxic in terms of 4chan cretins by 2010 and by 2012 there were obvious signs of nation state activity.

You should have seen the Yahoo! boards in 2014 when Russia invaded Ukraine. The rusbots were everywhere defending the invasion, talking about how WWIII was right around the corner if Ukraine was helped defend itself, how Russia has nuclear weapons (that trope is still ongoing) and so on.

Nation state activity doesn't get more blatant than that.

If ever there was an industry crying out for regulation, it's the AI industry. I say that not because I'm against them, but because they would actually do better in the long run if they were regulated, instead of goading other into this insane game of chicken where everybody loses when the bubble bursts.

I asked my neighbor who has one a polite version of "Why did you buy it?". He said it makes him feel like a superhero. He volunteered that the suspension is software controlled so you can dial in the kind of handling you like.
But I can't really answer your question, being far from the target market.

Those personal devices, which won't have any government info on them, may be to blame.

If you truly believe that, seek a mental health professional.

The Al-Khayat brothers are also involved in the recent purchase of Lukoil assets.

Is anyone surprised the Russian asset has his people using proxies or software from Russia during an election? Do I need to spell it out what they were trying to do?