Now that sociopath neural networks exist, what we need now is to have them enabled to do anything, unsupervised and unaccountable. We can sell it by saying it "can work towards your goals 24/7" when we really mean it can help you destroy the people you hate, until it destroys you instead.

If an always-on AI can do "productive" things on your behalf, doesn't that show a failure to identify work you need to do? It's questionable why such tools should even exist, but we all know how quickly these things will abuse their access to do unacceptable things. As intended by their creators.

"Make no mistake. We are giving birth to a new species."
No, we are not. AI is deterministic, it is merely software and has none of the characteristics of a "species".

"Imagine a Mensa member locked in a room full of toddlers."
I would rather not, but Mensa is mostly about narcissism. AI is not narcissistic, it is sociopathic.

"Post-AGI? I'll give human usefulness 90 days. Tops."
You won't last that long.

And after it kills people, it can be turned off...then right back on.

The hysterical thing is that the models don't matter, the agents do. Not talking about those though.

The irony is that while some in the industry advocate a moratorium on model development, the moratorium should be on agent deployment, what those same companies want to accelerate. The government should be supporting development of non-sociopathic models while banning deployment of software that does damage on behalf of bad AI decisions.

Those are the people you voted for.

As long as it's ICE doing the killing, what's the difference between 1000 and 100,000? DOGE is about efficiency after all.

This is the most important thing for people to understand. Built into this data, carefully designed to mislead, is a misrepresentation as to what's important. Injuries can be reduced just my eliminating driving entirely but that doesn't make Waymo money. But Waymo ruining YOUR driving is perfectly OK. And they do.

I think it's hysterical that people think insurance companies will force drivers off the road. They will certainly raise prices as much as they can, but they will NOT destroy one of their most profitable markets. Waymo doesn't need a policy from State Farm.

Does it though? Waymo can refuse a ride to the emergency room because of a shower, you would not. Sociopathy is not a virtue...unless you're Elon Musk.

It's never a question whether self-driving should ever even be considered on roads designed only for human drivers. I think it should NOT be. A mile high stack of band-aids piled on top of a software stack that no one understands and that contains a limitless number of bugs that no one will ever fix is not my idea of a foundation to risk my life on, far better would be a road system designed to support automated driving directly. But that doesn't make Elon money.

Waymo doesn't count an entire class of accidents, a class far more common to occur at slower speeds. Of course, it's then important to know what Waymo's mix of slow speed vs high speed driving is compared to the human data. This is lying with statistics.

"Simple, the amount of crashes caused by a human or a driverless car over an x amount of miles in a city environment. "
This is certainly false, both because of the bogus assumption what the miles are and the lack of information on what's a "crash" and what "caused by" means.

"People really are bad at driving generally..."
This is wildly false, it's an Elon Musk-level lie.

"almost all accidents are caused by a human driver not paying attention while driving, not due to some technical failure of the car itself"
So what? Built into this narrative are assumptions that self-driving is naturally far better AND that accident rates are high.

I tried to look into this and found no information at all. Waymo doesn't report its mix of driven miles and how it compares to the human data. And what exactly qualifies to get reported? And Waymo can cause an accident without being involved and that would not be reported here, yet a human would be. Autonomous driving has incidents of substantial interference with traffic, there would certainly be incidents of Waymo causing damage to traffic that would not be reported.

It's easy to reduce traffic injuries to zero, just stop driving. What's more important is reducing injuries while supporting transportation, this study doesn't care about that.

I see no evidence of that. I see claims. Are Waymo's miles directly comparable to human miles? Who knows.

And human drivers are NOT, "on average, really bad".

AI companies want model development frozen to lock out competitors and enable them to invest more aggressively in agents. Meanwhile, development in models is what is most important and government should halt all deployment of agents. It should be clear to everyone that AI companies have exactly the opposite of your best interests in mind.

An AI model isn't going to kill you, that's the agent's job.

Correct, it is a long-solved problem with no new difference other than public outrage at abuses.

It is terrible that a private corporation seeks to profit in this manner, but that's an entirely different issue. All sorts of entities generate security footage for private reasons, with that footage obtainable using a judge's order. Nothing to see here.

As a layman, that makes perfect sense. As a lawyer the story might be different. We all know that it's not entrapment as long as the police get a camera crew to entrap for them. A popular TV show was based on exploitation of that.

If someone burglarizes your house, is your neighbor's security camera footage unusable because it was gathered before a warrant? Isn't a private security camera's intention to capture someone doing something bad, just like Flock?

"Thus it is government surveillance prior to a warrant."
But it's not any more than your home security cameras are "government surveillance prior to a warrant". It's the overwhelming degree to which these cameras are deployed that is offensive, similar to how Ring doorbell cameras used to inform police was offensive. Everyone hates this, but your assumption that the law supports your point of view is naive. Of course Flock exists to exploit the public through law enforcement. But that's not new or interesting.

Now, he didn't say awful, he said evil. And we all know that some theoretical post-menopausal spotting on the chair in the Oval Office is way more evil than diaper leakage, right? God says so, and it doesn't take SuperKendall Intelligence to figure that out!

Says the paid AC that neither knows nor cares what "modern feminism" or "wokeness" even is.

Debunked? Citations please.

Freedom is deciding how women and brown people can live their lives (or not), right?