Probably the next code that it outputs will be:

So last week's "summit" went that well, eh?

So we're going to use an AI to monitor AIs to make sure they're not doing anything naughty? Pretty sure I've seen that movie already...

Not to mention, who exactly pays for Sentry to run? Golly, if some completely random AI hardware manufacturer were to somehow profit off designing and selling a scheme to waste extra tokens on yet another layer of supervision, that would almost look just a wee bit unethical!

My Walmart is worse than that. They didn't have any price tags at all. Just video screens with AI avatars of a guy in baggy pants sitting cross-legged on a rug.

When I walk by, he says "Look at my cotton swabs! I offer you the best cotton swabs in the land!"

I say: "Well, how much to they cost?"

He squints at me, looks me up and down for a long while, then says: "For you........ I give to you seven hundred and fifty swabs for two pieces of silver only. Believe me when I say you will search this entire kingdom and not find a better deal!"

That wasn't quite the response I expected - I guess I'm not entirely clear on whether you were mocking those guardrails, or presenting them as legitimately (albeit perversely) meaningful.

Either way, my central point was "why not both". It's entirely possible to be neutral, in the sense of calculating the mean (in the internal thought-vector sense) of all available viewpoints. If, however, 99% of sources are talking positively about some trashy conspiracy theory - Any version of "consensus" is itself going to lean pretty far into wingnut territory. In that regard, I think we might actually be agreeing?

We can meaningfully ask the question "For each location a robotaxi has been involved in some sort of incident, how does the incident rate for both humans and other robotaxies comapre?"

That's not a meaningless number, and it's entirely possible Waymo really is doing better than humans - But only in situations Waymo gets to cherry-pick simply by enforcing their designated service areas. Meanwhile, let me know when a Waymo can successfully navigate overgrown single-track dirt roads common in my area. Anyone know offhand if they have moose in the Philippines?

I'm a fan of drastically slowing AI development until we've solved the alignment problem, but a kill switch ain't it.

What would a kill switch really do? An AI is fundamentally nothing more than a description of it's topology and a set of a few billion weights. Implementing that topology and running those weights is the easy part and any coder worth a damn could roll their own (performance aside) with minimal effort - without bothering with a kill switch, if they so choose.

The only way to even come close to enforcing a kill order would be for every sufficiently-performant processing platform to enforce some kind of blacklist of known-evil weights in a way that's resilient across different quantization levels. And even then, simply running pre-killswitch drivers would still be a trivial way to circumvent any such restrictions entirely. Or for the truly determined, you can run even top frontier models on vastly underpowered hardware like a mid-range desktop CPU. Sure, your throughput might be measured in minutes per token, but realtime feedback isn't going to change the answer to "how do I hack the Gibson". An accurate answer a few days from now is likely to be just as useful in the vast majority of situations.

That all assumes there are more-or-less equally relevant answers available from both trusted and biased sources.

If someone asks about Hunter Biden's penis, that assumption is false, and the vast majority of relevant, if not necessarily accurate, information will come from partisan shills. There aren't any noteworthy safety issues, aside from the abstract risk of a third term leading to our next civil war. And there isn't any middle ground, since the response to the right's delusions isn't rebuttal but rather, a pretty much uniform "what the fuck is wrong with you people?" from the left.

We always need to remember AI isn't "smart", it's nothing but autocorrect on crack. It can't meaningfully evaluate those criteria we're giving it in any way except shifting the probabilities of multiple competing matches. If there's only one viewpoint represented in vast majority of training data, that's the one it's forced to choose.

Here's the headline: "Midterm wins for Trump caused by Open Source AI Russian Bots! Lawmakers demand answers, and call elections illegitimate! Bernie Sanders calls for 20 years in prison for running a propaganda bot network! OpenAI and Anthropic says they can't do anything without banning open source and an FDA for AI models that will take years and cost millions to approve new models."

They are kissing up to Donny by letting him rename everything he farts on.

Except for the fact that Slashdot's moderation doesn't actually work, thanks to the reich-wing retards building up botfarms to farm for mod points.

I don't think there is a solution. In all seriousness, if I were starting my career from scratch today, I would avoid anything that can be done purely remotely, and quite likely go into a skilled trade - Not romanticizing "hands-on" work, I realize it has its own down-sides, but it's becoming increasingly clear we'll still have elevator techs and plumbers longer than we'll have programmers and accountants.

AI has effectively already killed white collar jobs going forward, whether or not those outside tech have noticed yet. It can more-or-less replace junior-level workers today, and with no juniors there will be no seniors later and no principals twenty+ years from now. Though even if we somehow find a way to backfill the experience pipeline, I have little doubt AI will be coming for even the best of us within a decade. Maybe it'll hit some unforeseen ceiling before then, but that's not a bet I'm eager to take.

Now Slashdot is letting the GOPedophile Retardicans use AI to farm accounts for modpoints and downmod anyone that isn't a Shit Eating Nazi Republican too.

Respectfully, no, it absolutely doesn't.

Their reasoning sounds plausible only if read from a "business weasel" perspective. If there's a market for RPis with more lower quality RAM, nobody is "undercutting" RPF; they're selling the products they want to, at the price they want to, and choosing not to offer big/slow/cheap OEM RAM configurations. And even if someone could undercut them on the exact same components - So what??? RPF may be a non-profit, but I am not!

The RPi is specifically targeted at DIY'ers, providing a cheap and stable base platform for us to add on whatever freaky shit we want to. Blocking owners from doing exactly that, whether it mean adding on a toaster or oodles of garbage RAM, is some classic Apple-level control freak BS and fundamentally antithetical to their entire purpose. Buh-bye goodwill when it looks like RPi is working hard to make itself just another whore of an SBC manufacturer. And I can promise RPF if they really want to compete in that market, China is going to eat them for lunch.

Execute it for spying on gov't.