Are they going to chip you, or control your brain by more direct means?

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.

Too hot, too humid, too hilly and junglely. I'd look at Minnesota

Decide what you want...data centers or Somalis?

Ok...how about they offer $1million or so to buy you out of your house and property? Maybe $1.5M...so after taxes you could end up with net $1M or close to it...?

I'd take that deal.

I wonder if lawmakers are going to try to force this shit on HOME users, private citizens running local models and agents...?

I do wonder if some of this Frontier AI push for laws is not only to try to fend off upstart commercial vendors, but also...the home market, since running local models makes $0 for those Frontier/Cloud AI companies......?

comes great responsability. We are not ready. Can we let those AIs compute the meaning of life the universe and everything first? That should keep it busy.

Nah...we already got that one.

42.

Are hammers hitting thumbs?

Are cartons of expired milk invading refrigerators?

Are cars double-parking themselves?

Tools don't spontaneously act....

You forgot...."Are guns killing people?"

Nope.

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.

Pink Slime?

WTF is Pink Slime? The article seems to assume this is a common political term?

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.

k but what about thousands of accounts on the internet about deaths that USAID would have prevented? enough to humble even Elon Musk? just ignoring the inconvenient fact?

Well, there are other mechanisms that can be used to "save lives"....many are in action and have been for decades. Many private ones. The problem with USAID was that it was funding TONS of money to useless causes, and many funneling for political purposes which should not happen.

Yes, somewhat throwing baby out with the bathwater, but no other way really.

And also....what makes the US the world's brothers' keeper? I mean, it's nice, its a good thing to do, BUT we could be better served making sure all US citizens are taken care of first before we go outside our borders for the most part.

Of course some exceptions, but not many I can think of.

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*