From the transcript about 43 minutes in of a public conversion with Eric Schmidt from Apr 10, 2025: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...
====
          "Question: Thanks for the great conversation so far. Leonard Justin. I'm a PhD student at MIT. Um, I was wondering if you could just discuss a bit more some of the risks you see coming specifically with respect to biology and how we should go about mitigating those. What's the role of the AI developers? What's the role of government? Um, yeah, how can we move forward on that?
        ----
        Schmidt: So, so you're going to know a lot more about this area than I, but speaking as an amateur in your field, the two current risks from these models are cyber and biorisks.
        The cyber ones are easy to understand. The system can generate cyber attacks and in theory can generate zero-day cyber attacks that we can't see and it can unleash them and furthermore it can do it at scale.
        In biology, you get some evil, you know, the equivalent of Osama bin Laden. They would start with an open-source model. Now these open source models have been restricted using a testing process. Uh they're called cards and they test it out and they delete that information from the model.
        It turns out it's relatively easy to un to reverse essentially those security modes around the model and that's a danger. So now you've got a model that can generate bad pathogens.
        Then the second thing you have to do is you have to find things to build them. Our collective assessment at the moment is that that's a nation state risk, not an individual terrorist risk. Although we could be wrong, but there's plenty of examples uh and this the the report talks about some of the Chinese examples where in theory if they wanted to they could not only manufacture bad things but sorry design them but also manufacture them.
        The good news and the reason we're all alive today is that the bio stuff is hard to manufacture and distribute and to make deadly and and spread and so forth and so on. Um there's lots of evidence for example that you can take a bad bio right now and modify it just enough that the testing regimes and the sort of surveillance regimes it bypasses and that's another threat.
        So that's what I worry about.
        But I think at the moment u our consensus is we're right below the threshold where this is an issue and the consensus in in my side of the industry is that one more or two more turns of the crank these issues will be -- and you know by then you'll be graduated and you can sort of help solve these problems.
        Um the a crank is turned every 18 months or so. This is about three years.
        ----
        Moderator: But theoretically, couldn't AI and biotechnology help you come up with a counter measure?
        ----
        Schmidt: Um, I had thought so, and that was the argument I made until I I do a lot of national security work. And there's a term called offense dominant. And an offense dominant is a is a situation in a military context where the attack cannot be countered at the same level as the attack. In other words, the damage is done.
        And most people, most biologists who've worked in this believe that while the model can be trained to counter this, the damage from the offense part is far greater than the ability to defend it, which is why we're so worried about it."
====

Ultimately, I feel a big part of the response to that threat needs to be a shift in perspective like through people laughing at my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity." :-)

Explored in more detail here:
"Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism"
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpdfernhout.net%2Frecogni...
        "... Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere?
        These militaristic socio-economic ironies would be hilarious if they were not so deadly serious. ...
        There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ..."

You are regurgitating propaganda. Pretty mindless and stupid propaganda at that. You think China can magically generate money to create that "artificially lower price sticker"? No, they cannot. They have to earn that money somewhere else. Incidentally, things like lowering taxes, investing into technology development, etc. are all _perfectly_ legal under the WTO trade rules (there is no other "legal" limits here, US law does not apply in China) and that is essentially what they are doing. The US does similar things domestically.

Seriously, start to think and stop just repeating crap others told you.

That is an excellent point. There is a lot going on with training data that the AI sellers do not seem to understand. In their haste (and clearly panic) to make their products seem to be absolutely great and something they are not, they seem to stop at almost nothing now.

It is not, unless all private or chat use was prohibited. That is difficult. because it is perfectly acceptable to use the company email to mail home "sorry, I am going to work an hour longer" or "lets have lunch at xyz today" to a co-worker. And those messages belongs to the user and are protected under the GDPR and cannot be used in any new ways the user did not consent to.

Because then this would be completely illegal.

There is a tendency, among both scientists and non-scientists, to assume that our current scientific theories are correct in some fundamental sense ⦠but the history of science suggests otherwise. Almost all of the theories that were at one time viewed as correct have been abandoned.

â" David Merritt, 2020

No, the one that answered:

"You know what he means, ahole. If this were truly a problem the jet fuel would be rationed and private aircraft would be at the bottom of the priority list"

The entire point of rationing would be to REMOVE the pure market forces that would deal out the limited commodity to those with the largest wallets and replace it with a scheme that benefits the most people, instead of the most money.

If you actually knew better, you'd have posted it, not just made a vague assertion.

Yes, and the only ships running on nuclear reactors are military ships. As I said: No civilian use-case.

There's no research going on, because this isn't something you can address scientifically with any semblance of hope of getting it.

So what we have instead is modelling, aka "data science". It's essentially numerology pretending to use tools of science.

Why do I say that?

Science is about a specific process: you make a hypothesis, you set up a test of your hypothesis, you test it, find it true or not and based on that your hypothesis becomes a scientific theory or a rejected hypothesis.

"Data science" works in exact opposite way. It generates no hypothesis, instead if generates "how world should work according to our best guess" model. I.e. it starts with the outcome "this is how world should be, now let us pick the numbers to demonstrate it", rather than the premise "world may be this way, let's see if it's true". Then it proceeds to plug numbers, both guessed and real into the model. Then they see if the output, and begin adjusting the numbers to get the outputs they desire.

As a result, science doesn't care about scientist. Hypothesis is either repeatable or not. Modelling is all about the human. Which numbers have been selected, which left out, which numbers have been guessed, and what multipliers were assigned.

And that is why "environmental modelling" has been so hilariously wrong all the time. Remember all the "2020 is the time when all the models from 2000s claiming to predict what happens in 20 years had to be actually tested against reality, and they all ran hilariously hot compared to reality". That was IPCC's reckoning at the time.

Nothing meaningful has changed since then. Modelling is still "top tier climate science".

If a total collapse of human civilization and organic life is the price then it is a small price to pay.

Without trillionaires who will protect ethics and games journalism and women's sports?

Sure in the past our billionaires have been able to protect us. Spending thousands of hours on 4chan to make sure you knew what was really important.

But no mere billionaire can protect us from the woke mind virus. For that we need trillionaires.

Like a congressional bill. And in the middle of a sentence he suddenly started talking about a imaginary guy named Bill.

I don't think Trump is parroting Fox news, because I don't think his brain works enough anymore for him to do that. Maybe 8 years ago during his first presidency but right now his brain is just gone.

Just recently he went on a rant about how terrible the country was a year ago without realizing he was President a year ago.

The guy has absolutely lost his marbles and if Congress was at all functional he would get 25th amendment'ed, but if we had anything functional Trump wouldn't be president for reasons I'm not going to list out because this post would get too long

That's it. That's all you got to do is stop ticket scalping. If you enforce antitrust law then we go back to the days when tickets were sold in all sorts of different places and there were lots of different venues for musicians and comedians and whatnot. As a result ticket scalping becomes impractical because there is just too many different places to buy tickets from and too many different venues to go to. It's only out of control market consolidation that makes scalping practical because you can go to Ticketmaster and just buy an entire run and do that for the handful of remaining venues.

There are lots of problems with our broken capitalist system that need fixing but the quickest, easiest and highest impact is to just start enforcing antitrust law so that the basic mechanism of competition starts to work again. Unless and until we do that everything is going to keep falling apart around us.

So yeah you're going to turn to randos for journalism because a handful of billionaires bought up literally 90% of all the news media and they are in the process of buying up and shutting down what little is left. There are serious efforts to undermine and shut down the associate press and Reuters. And they're basically the last source of Truth left. There used to be a whole bunch of independent journalists who made a living on Twitter but well, you know.

So unless you just want billionaire Epstein class propaganda you've really got to go looking. There are several YouTubers I like. Belle of the ranch, Rebecca Watson, and professor Dave come to mind immediately. Patrick Boyle is pretty good too and so is Adam Something. I like some more news but I'm a pretty staunch Democrat at this point and they like to spend hours and hours crapping on Democrats for no particularly useful reason. I don't say good here because there's plenty of reasons to complain about Democrats but I don't find it useful in 2026..

But getting back on track yeah I'm not going to waste time on CBS or CNN let alone Fox News and news Max and oan because I know they're all owned by billionaires that have heavy control over what is allowed to be said and what isn't allowed to be said. So I can't get reliable information out of them.

I will sometimes settle for CNN if I have to they weren't able to go full Fox News but Lord knows they are trying.

Can't read hex? What? And who is speaking of "straight up replace IPv4"? Who is saying that? What are you responding to? If you want to use IPv4 on your private network knock yourself out. Nobody cares. IPv6 is only needed for public Internet.

"SLAAC, RAs" is the same shit. DHCPv6 is optional and AAAA records are no different than A records. All of the elements are the same and the protocols work the same way with only minor structural differences. Any router that is going to provide routing and DHCPv4 services is going to do the same for IPv6. You just have the added option of forgoing DHCPv6 if not needed. "Still another dozen services required"?? What dozen services? "to get full interoperability with v4" ... What interoperability? IPv4 and IPv6 are separate protocols that do the same shit. There are abstraction layers in higher level systems (DNS, Dualstack...etc) allowing both protocols to be used by higher level applications seamlessly but they generally do not interoperate. There were/are mechanisms that allow IPv4 to be a carried over IPv6 but they are generally unused.

The ship sailed on compatibility the day a fixed size of the IPv4 packet header was cast in stone. The problem is address space not structure of packets, protocol design or any other consideration. Any change to increase address space REQUIRES global changes to ALL systems to maintain a network in which each peer is addressable by every other peer.

There is an insufficient space of possible addresses to meet demand. Either you invent some kind of extension mechanism with tunneling layers or you deploy a new protocol. The tunneling bullshit was not production quality and soundly rejected by the market. Dualstack works as a production quality solution that has been in widespread use for decades.

The Internet is a network of peers and there is widespread value in this persisting. This value is not derived by the existence of any particular L3 protocol. Common applications include interactive games, P2P/file sharing, voice and video conferencing, remote access, providing information services..etc.