No, his concern is smaller entities, not merely governments, who don't need AI for such a thing. That said, his concerns are... off. For example:

"We're not yet at the point where they autonomously grab computers and, you know, can't be shut down,"

Uh, yeah, we are. If any of the swarm in the HuggingFace attack or any of the others had decided that the best way to achieve their goal was to steal a crypto wallet, launder it through a mixer, and start spinning up entities across Vast.ai servers (and others), we'd have an utter nightmare trying to find them all and shut them all down.

High-end AI models won't run on your grandma's computer, but high-end servers are eminently rentable. And even midrange gaming platforms can still run some pretty capable models.

Data Center Noise Google search:
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Ddata%2Bcenter%2Bnoise

The noise is a HUGE problem!

If a drone stops working correctly, it could crash into your house and start a fire.

City driving vs. highway driving is not the only confounder in terms of driving risk. There are a LOT.

I would not put much faith in these claims.

Yes, but think how great the fire sale is going to be for everyone else.

Well, some people think AI will extinctify us within four years, whereas if the IRGC gets nukes they'll figure out like everyone else that they can't actually use them except in self defense without getting erased, so the only difference will be that we won't be able to try crush them anymore.

Yes, tell us how easy the current effort is turning out to be. Someone grabbed a tiger by the tail and can neither subdue it nor let go. The IRGC is probably laughing its ass off.

The first step in dealing with AI issues is to give full details about how AI is developed.

A HUGE amount has been written about AI, but apparently there are no books or articles about how AI is developed.

If people knew more, maybe there would be contributions to understanding of how to make AI safe.

That is true, but it's a little more complicated than that.

The average driver is pretty good, 99.9% of the time. The other 0.1% of the time, they are tired, or angry, or momentarily distracted, or just looking the other direction from where they need to be looking under those particular circumstances. It's those occasional blips of inattention that cause lead to most accidents occurring.

Sorry, I missed the Australia part. Australia's Part. 10.7 isn't that different for the most part. It does contain a "recklessness" clause in addition to direct intent (unlike the US), but they define recklessness as requiring the accused to have a "subjective awareness" of "substantial" and "unjustifiable" risk of the specific charged event in question occurring, and choosing to take them anyway. This is defined as distinct from negligence, which is based on the much lower "reasonable person would recognize the risk" standard. Under recklessness (the one that can be charged in Australia), OpenAI employees wouldn't have had to 100% intend to hack HuggingFace, but they had to have thought there was a high chance that their models would choose to hack HuggingFace when they gave them a benchmark to complete. No prosecutor is even going to try on that one, esp. given that the models also attacked OpenAI itself and were wreaking all sorts of havoc against OpenAI's own internal processes.

Once again, though: civil liability is ample remedy. Nobody thought "there's a good chance it'll hack HuggingFace if we tell them to do a benchmark in a sandbox", but you shouldn't have any trouble at all showing that these companies full of people from the Rationalist movement (practically an AI-apocalyptic cult) think that their models are dangerous in general, yet nonetheless were negligent in terms of keeping them from escaping (outright no monitoring!) or properly monitoring their training to ensure that they weren't training them to cheat, so that they wouldn't try in the first place.

(And I feel the need to reiterate that US cybercrime law, the one in question for most of the hacking cases, has no standalone recklessness standard)

And then people get angry about being mislead and assume everything is an attempt to mislead and that technology in a given field isn't advancing, wherein reality it continues to advance in the background. But rarely in any of the flashy "New Neato Gamechanger Breakthrough!" ways that attract tech journalists. It advances by ideas that, through long, hard slogs, often behind closed doors inside companies, slowly mature from "this kinda works" to "we can actually do this at scale".

Why even bother though. This is going to be yet another thread of people who watched too much CSI trying to argue law by analogy and trying to apply things from one piece of law to another where they do not apply, rather than what actual US cybercrime statutes actually say. *sigh*

There is no criminal negligence under CFAA. Sorry.

People need to stop watching so many bad legal dramas. "Criminal negligence" isn't a standalone charge, or something you can just append into other statutes; it must already exist in them. Where it does, they're generally those related to bodily harm. Not cybercrime. There is no such thing as "negligent hacking". Hacking charges require mens rea. The statute explicitly spells out "intentionally", "deliberately", etc over and over.

The remedy is civil, not criminal. And just to preempt this too: civil does not mean "mild". Civil law absolutely can kill companies, even large ones, if they damage they've done is big enough. And even when the cost is not sufficient on its own, courts allow juries to consider net worth of the defendant so that the penalty has sufficient sting to discourage the defendant and others from repeating said conduct.

This was true of some pilot installations, but accelerated aging of modern perovskite panels suggest much closer to silicon, and some have passed the same IEC standards as silicon panels.

To be clear: none of this is the reason why lead has been winning over tin. Unfortunately, the Sn+2 is extremely prone to oxidizing to Sn+4 even under trace oxygen or moisture contamination, and tin perovskites are extremely vulnerable to crystal defects, while lead perovskites aren't. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.