Probably his first, second, and third cousin.

Narrow and stupid thinking.

Another possibility is simply that this was over-charged because she doesn't like the police, eg, most of her crime was Contempt of Cop.

People keep cherry-picking the "in any manner in which it may be viewed by another person" but are completely ignoring the words about "to send, post, or transmit." In context, send, post, and transmit are all talking about sending to somebody, not merely "on a computer" or "in cloud storage."

Many people are also ignoring the definition of "threat," forgetting that you have to intend somebody to receive it and be frightened for it be a "threat." It isn't at all clear that a reasonable person knowing it's possible for a tech worker at the cloud diary company to review it means that any person automatically is intending to threaten somebody via that reviewer.

It's also not true that the standard of Mens Rea is that if you're an idiot you have to be imprisoned in a mental facility. "She should have read the terms" is fine for civil liability, but it doesn't satisfy mens rea. "The defendant must be conscious of the “facts that make his conduct fit the definition of the offense." See: Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994)." https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fwe... If she didn't understand that a human might read her diary, then there's no threat crime there. And if she understood people would read it, she probably wouldn't put her diary there, as it is a type of document that is customarily private.

That one actually has some science behind it. Not enough to trust, but some.

Well, it would lose all sensory and motor connections. Sometimes some of them reconnect over a period of several months...but many never do.

I think you die of various neural problems before the reconnection has a chance to get started. (And, of course, you've got a horrendous case of "bubble boy" syndrome for the rest of your life.)

IIUC, there are cells in the body that retain the "true copy". (I.e., they've duplicated VERY few times.) However, they therefore aren't widely distributed. This means no "local process" in most of the body has access to them. It's why women produce only a limited number of ova. S.a. Hayflick limit.

I'm pretty sure that's too simple an answer. There are several lines of evidence that suggest much of aging depends on the blood (at least in mice). Which doesn't imply that there aren't other parts.

(One experiment I read about grafted together the blood steams of a young mouse and an old mouse. The old mouse appeared to get younger.,)

No. I think it's older than LLMs.

"They" is any group exercising unmonitored power. It's not just the Republicans. Democrats to it too. And it's not just political groups. Police is one common example, but that's because lots of people notice it's affecting them.

EVERY center of power needs to be transparent, or this problem will occur. Unfortunately, for some centers of power, transparency itself leads to other problems.

"The rotten apple spoils his companion."

Mmm. Well, I attribute intentionality, if not much situational awareness, to LLMs, but I can see that it could be argued otherwise. (And as for "responsibility", the AI was acting as an agent of the folks who were running it.)

Actually, much of what has been reported would seem to be in violation of the computer fraud and abuse act. E.g. it often "broke in" using credentials that it had no right to use.

Understanding cost in the external world requires having a good model of the external world. The current LLMs, IIUC, don't have such a model. They have models of interacting words. It's truly amazing that they can do as much with that as they can, but don't over-read it.

OTOH, other AIs *do* have a world model. Most of those aren't full LLMs though. But even those don't really have a good model of other non-electronic entities. Think of self-driving cars, or robots practicing dance routines. These have a world model, but don't really have lots of other info that LLMs typically have. And even those don't have good models of people or dogs, and how they feel when something happens to them. But for LLMs, the real world *is* their electronic sensations. Words are patterns associated with those sensations. But no "body in the world" is involved in the model.

It clearly *was* viewed by another person, because some of the staff at Anthropic viewed it. She may not have intended that it be viewed, but it happened.

That's never the question. No one is expected to answer that. Questions are not permitted. Asking questions is clue #1 your a Nazi.

The world should accept some bad things happening when we defund law enforcement.

The world should accept some bad things happening when the kids get trans-ed.

The world should accept some bad things happening when incarceration is obviated.

The world should accept some bad things happening when we unionize government workers.

The world should accept some bad things happening when we obviate standardized testing.

Finally, after having decided that all these things are the unquestioned purview of our most virtuous Great And Good, and a cohort of elites is entirely accustomed to inflicting whatever model for the world they prefer: 'The World Should Accept Some Bad Things Happening' For the Benefits of AI.

Ok. You're in their hands now, right where you put yourself. Enjoy.

I can't help but chalk up whatever has Altman's statement bouncing around your echo chamber to selective outrage. The fact is, the hubris we see here is not special.

The world should accept some bad things happening as we "decarbonize" everything.

The world should accept some bad things happening as we DEI everything.

The world should accept some bad things happening as we eradicate our provincial notions of borders and citizenship, up to and including mass deaths from terrorism.

We're expected to accept "bad things" on behalf of any number of elite agendas and virtues. Deeply isolated and disconnected bubble dwellers such Altman have been behaving exactly like this for a long time now. So don't be surprised if you find there is no real consequences, walk backs or other desirable outcome here; the elites you have been enabling feel quite entitled to they're indifference to your concerns, and you made them that way.