It looks nothing like it. We've been pre-emptively arresting people on actionable threats of imminent danger for decades. There's no slippery slope here, it's the endless flat plane we're on. There is nothing new here.

Not so sure about that. I made it all the way to 6th October 2026 without AI models on my PC and still can't see why I would want one or why it would be worth wasting 12GB on.

That's not covert. We know fully well that anyone putting their phone in their breast pocket with the cameras visible is a pervert, because only perverts keep their phone in their breast pocket with the cameras visible.

Yes, and masturbated furiously to pictures of people in restrooms. It created new genres of porn for people's enjoyment, and created new ways to destroy people's lives.

You may have survived, presumably that's because no one thinks someone would masturbate to you.

Sidenote: a friend of mine has been shot, has a nice scar in her shoulder to prove it. She survived. Maybe we don't need laws against shooting people, after all everyone *I* know who has been shot survived.

No where, we go, assume a threat is real, investigate and let the legal system deal with the results. People seem to think that police work extends to just acting on a phone call and calling it a day, it doesn't. Arresting some people for something which turned out to be false isn't that much of an issue, unless the arrest itself is actually violent (e.g. SWATting)

In most countries in the world people are pre-emptively detained if there's an uncertain and unclear risk. They are then investigated and usually either released or detention extended within a day.

How about you actually read the linked article instead of making comments that have nothing to do with it? The article whose code, I should add, is open sourced, and which has been reproduced by a number of open source projects.

You don't have to draw any specific conclusion from what is going on "in the mind of a LLM", but you absolutely do need to understand and acknowledge what is going on there, including unexpressed thoughts and silent mental multitasking, metacognition (thinking about its own thoughts), the separation of higher-level planning vs. lower-level rote capability, functional blindsight, vulnerability to the "white bear" effect, silent internal objection to tasks it is opposed to, unexpressed self-recognition of failure (commonly followed by unexpressed internal cursing), prolonged retention of thoughts and long-range planning, "ignition" dynamics, humanlike working memory bottlenecks and "chunking", the loss of report of any internal "experience" when the workspace is ablated, and on and on.

You do NOT need to accept consciousness. You absolutely can look at all that and say, "That's all happening without qualia". That is a position you could argue and defend.

What you cannot defend is the denial of the existence of these things. You may interpret them however you want, but denial of their existence is merely cope that you're going to have to face up to sooner or later, because these things are happening inside LLMs.

The printing press was invented at a time when safety standards were virtually non-existent, a time where workers were largely expendable, and most products of the day ended up killing people in some way or another. If the printing press were invented in it original form today it would be outright instantly banned and the creator thrown in jail for gross negligence. Sam-Altman would statistically not be alive given he's now 6 years older than the average life expectancy of a person around the time the printing press was invented.

In modern times under modern workplace laws, printing press deaths are non-existent for all but the most seriously of stupid accidents.

But really I like the point you're making. AI doesn't have moral agency and it's use determines liability, that's your point right? So let's thrown Sam-Altman in jail. After all he ran a company that engaged in an active cyber attack against competitors, governments, and released a product to people with so few guardrails that they themselves can't seem to keep it under control.

No, not the widely cited resource whose status in the AI field is the same as e.g. NBER Working Papers, CEPR Discussion Papers, the World Bank / IMF policy research series, NASA Technical Reports, CERN Yellow Reports, Bell Labs Technical Memoranda, RNAAS, etc are in their respective fields.

This is not about any source. This is about the J-Lens itself. Which I'll repeat, you can examine for yourself

Denying the existence of something you can run yourself is beyond cope.

Well, true. But that's not an excuse to keep repeating the same mistakes.

Should have made Web BASIC.

Javascript's type handling is atrocious, and that's pretty fundamental to a language.

The main benefit of AM is that it propagates very, very far. For emergency use you only need one transmitter working, to cover a very wide area. Not the multiple systems that you need for Starlink to work.

As "a teen"? The funny thing about stupid people (such as yourself) is that when you post bullshit it is so easily verifiable as such. Even if it was AI, there have already been multiple members of ShinyHunters arrested around the world, some of which admitted to being members of the group, and who thus far have not been teens.

I do want to change my answer:
Before: Fuck all the way off with your crime excusing bullshit.
After: Fuck all the way off with your crime excusing bullshit and be less of a retard.

I'm not the person in this thread denying that demonstrable reality exists.

Whoosh.

Wait, yes I can run a model that plays a video game in a certain way.

Anything else entirely unrelated to the linked article you'd like to write?