Alterslash

the unofficial Slashdot digest
 

Contents

  1. Developer Abandons ‘PS5 Linux’ Project After Sony Patches AI-Discovered Exploit
  2. Fake AI Intelligence Almost Made the US Military Start a War With China
  3. US Air Force F-16 Crashes in Michigan After Pentagon Orders More Flyovers
  4. Gemini Breached Three Outside Systems, and Claude-Using Researchers Breached OpenAI
  5. Has the James Web Space Telescope Discovered a New ‘Black Hole Star’?
  6. AI Insiders Issue New Warnings - Including Former Anthropic Engineer Jacob Coxon
  7. Will California Gut Its Net Neutrality Law to Comply with Trump Admin Demands?
  8. Rust is Now a ‘Tier One’ Language at Microsoft
  9. Journalist Calls Out ‘Collective Amnesia’ of Schools’ Romance With Big Tech Over AI
  10. America Acknowledges for the First Time: It Has Deployed Weapons In Space
  11. Ex-Google DeepMind Researcher Also Warns AI Could ‘Kill All Humans’. But Meta’s Zuckerberg Believes Safety is Up to Each AI Company
  12. Iran Strikes On Amazon Data Centers Caused Permanent Loss of Customer Data
  13. Hackers Stole Flock’s Camera Software, Revealing How the Company Tracks Cars and People
  14. ‘Zuckoff’ App Detects Meta Smartglasses, as Meta Plans Camera-Free Version, Loses Money, and Offers Social Media Subscriptions
  15. OpenAI Admits Six More Instances of AI Models Acting Deceptively

Alterslash picks up to the best 5 comments from each of the day’s Slashdot stories, and presents them on a single page for easy reading.

Developer Abandons ‘PS5 Linux’ Project After Sony Patches AI-Discovered Exploit

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
“In April this year, we saw Andy Nguyen turning the PS5 into a Linux-powered gaming PC,” writes the blog It’s FOSS.

It ran Steam games and emulators using the PS5’s on-board hardware. But this week Andy announced he’s "stopping all my work on PS5 Linux" and “stepping away from the PS5 scene.” stopping work on porting the project to the PS5 Pro, which would’ve shipped sometime in 2027.
Andy Nguyen: After pouring my heart and months of my life into it, including plans to finish PS5 Pro support and release in 2027, it’s all down the sink.

The scene used to be a group of highly talented researchers, but now it is just a bunch of noobs using LLMs and writing hacks they don’t even understand. Slop kiddies found the only hypervisor bug left, which I had also found a while ago, and decided to report to Sony. I asked them to at least wait for GTA 6 to come out so that people would have the opportunity to legally purchase the game and also enjoy Linux. They agreed to wait, but not a day passed and they decided to waste it instead.
Or, as It’s FOSS tells it:
Running Linux on a PlayStation console is possible because the PS5 Linux project was able to find a way past the hypervisor using exploits Sony had already patched, covering firmware 3.00 through 7.61. ..

[The bug’s discoverer writes it was] found with what he calls his "trusty ai clanker machine" and no help from anyone else. He had even agreed to Andy’s request to not disclose the findings. Unexpectedly, a third person, still unnamed, found the same bug using AI a few hours later. Anticipating that there would be more people finding the same bug, [he] decided to post the flaw on HackerOne.

The project’s GitHub page and all the related repositories are still there. Nothing has been archived as of today, and if you wanted to, you could start contributing to the PS5 Linux project by taking over any pending work or cooking up new improvements… The PS5 Pro support Andy was building never reached the repository, so you would have to start from scratch… While Andy’s departure is a blow to the plan for supporting newer PS5 firmware and the PS5 Pro, other contributors have shown that they can deliver work on the loader without him, and I am hopeful more will follow.

Fake AI Intelligence Almost Made the US Military Start a War With China

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
U.S. military intelligence received an inaccurate report this spring that a Chinese ship in the Middle East was transporting components of a nuclear weapons program, reports CNN.

“The US military swung into action with plans to intercept the vessel, according to four sources familiar with the episode.”
Armed members of the US military were preparing to board the ship [according to two of the sources]. Military planes were in the air, one of those sources and another source familiar with the incident said. It was only just before the planned operation that officials dug deeper into the report put together by a special operations command analyst and found it had been generated with the help of AI — and that a chatbot the analyst had used inaccurately identified the material the ship was carrying.

The report, according to one of the sources, was “entirely false.” But it also “almost started a war,” the source said. Any US operation against a Chinese vessel could have risked spiraling into an armed conflict between the two nations.

Across the US military and the intelligence community, officials are pushing to weave AI into nearly every facet of their work, from analyzing the huge volumes of raw intelligence the US collects and selecting targets for strikes, to more mundane applications like managing budgeting, logistics and supply chains. But the episode underscores the profound risks of using this powerful, new and relatively poorly understood technology for targeting in the middle of a war…

Officials say the US can’t afford to fall behind in integrating AI in case it must one day fight China or another adversary who would potentially be able to stay one step ahead of the US. In January, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth released his agency’s “Artificial Intelligence Acceleration Strategy” in a bid to speed up the military’s use of AI. “We will unleash experimentation, eliminate bureaucratic barriers, focus our investments and demonstrate the execution approach needed to ensure we lead in military AI,” Hegseth said in a speech announcing the strategy.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader stabiesoft for sharing the news.

My daily dose of confirmation Bias

By medusa-v2 • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

I keep seeing arguments that the “AI Will Kill Us All” argument is a bunch of doomsaying by people who overestimate the potential intelligence of these systems. My own intuition leads me to argue that AI does not have to become self aware or autonomous. It just has to be sufficiently adaptable to make us both dependent and stupid. Today my confirmation bias feels vindicated.

Re:My daily dose of confirmation Bias

By korgitser • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
Making us dependent and stupid is the whole game.

See, this is the real problem

By peterww • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

AI is not going to end the world. Stupid fucking humans who believe anything they read are going to end the world. If it wasn’t AI it would be “information” gathered by a nutjob in Trump’s cult.

Feature, not a bug

By BytePusher • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
Blaming AI will allow the monsters to do their monstrous things and blame the machines when there’s a potential consequence.

When AI hallucinations get a gun :o

By Mirnotoriety • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
Imagine a vast, high-dimensional space where tokens are points, connected by patterns learned from enormous amounts of text. “Doctor”, “hospital”, “medicine”, “patient”, etc. become strongly associated through how they appear together in language.

But the AI doesn’t understand these concepts as humans do; it learns relationships between tokens. When asked a question, it follows those relationships to construct the most plausible continuation.

The problem is that plausibility isn’t truth. The model is effectively confusing coherence with truth, constructing a coherent path through its associations that has no basis in reality. That is known as AI hallucination. In warfare, a hallucination isn’t just a wrong answer. It could become a wrong decision or a wrong action.

US Air Force F-16 Crashes in Michigan After Pentagon Orders More Flyovers

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
The F-16 “experienced an incident,” the Texas Military Department said in a statement, adding that “The pilot successfully ejected the aircraft and is receiving care at a nearby hospital.”

ABC News reports:
A Texas Air National Guard F-16 crashed in Michigan during a training mission on Thursday afternoon, sparking an hourslong evacuation near the crash site, according to officials.

The incident prompted the evacuation of homes and businesses within 1 mile of the crash site due to a “hazardous chemical spill related to the plane crash,” Michigan State Police said… All of the Texas Air National Guard aircraft that were in Michigan for the training were immediately grounded, and will likely remain so for the next 24 hours, according to a U.S. official.
America’s War Department has said it wanted to see more military flyovers writes The Daily Beast, adding that the F-16 “was due to perform a flyover at a high-school football game on Friday night, the Alpena News reported.”
The military said it was still investigating the cause of the crash, but one pilot told air traffic controllers that he believes his wingman hit a bird before the crash....

The accident followed a Pentagon X post on Thursday after widespread criticism of low-altitude flyovers and maneuvers. “The flyovers will continue until morale improves,” it said.

Re:Ah yes

By jd • Score: 5, Informative Thread

$22,000 per hour. The F35 will be nearer $42,000 per hour. These are under-estimates, as they do not include price hikes, crashes that close businesses, crashing into businesses, crashing into heavily-populated sports centres, etc.

Abusive tactic

By JoshuaZ • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

“The flyovers will continue until morale improves,” it said.

The original quote they are riffing on is “The beatings will continue until morale improves.” Essentially this is a variant of the “make a threat, but in a joking fashion, but really functionally a threat” sort of thing that dangerous and abusive people will do. Trump uses versions of this all the time, and it isn’t surprising that Hegseth and his people have picked up on this. I’d call this another warning sign about fascism but given everything else that’s going on, including a grossly illegal war in Iran, Trump functionally threatening to undermine the upcoming election, and Trump having removed generals and other higher-ups in the military that he sees as insufficiently loyal (read, more likely to actually follow the law and morality when given an illegal order), and this incident becomes almost part of the rounding error.

Re:Ah yes

By drnb • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

$22,000 per hour. The F35 will be nearer $42,000 per hour.

Yes, but pilots have to fly from waypoint to waypoint in formation for training purposes. These flights over stadiums count for such training hours, so its not really an additional expense. Even if there are extra flight hours in some cases, pilots routinely complain they do not get enough flight hours. So any additional hours in the air is valuable experience to them.

These are under-estimates, as they do not include price hikes, crashes that close businesses, crashing into businesses, crashing into heavily-populated sports centres, etc.

Many Air Force bases are near cities and towns. There is already a risk of crashing near residential and business areas. We had one when I was a kid. The pilot lost power but had some control and did not eject since there was a nearby residential area. He risked his life and crash-landed in an agricultural area. He walked away.

Migration season

By Mspangler • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

Flying low over the central flyway during migration season might not be a good idea.

Geese are non-compressible fluids as far as jet turbines are concerned. A sandhill crane even more so.

Re:Multi-waypoint time-on-target is military train

By bkmoore • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

Nope. It matters not whether a cross country multi-waypoint formation flight happens over an empty desert or a city football stadium. Its still a cross country navigation exercise. And in this military case there is also a precise time-on-target (arrive at a precise predetermined time) component. Multi-waypoint, time on target, this is a military training exercise from the pilot’s perspective. Sometimes you can do two things at once....

If you lose a tactical jet in a MOA, Restricted Area, or Warning Area, there usually is not much chance of hurting anyone on the ground. Also special use airspace is NOTAM’d when in use to keep other aircraft not participating in the training exercise out of the area. Doing tactical training over populated areas just puts the public at risk for no good reason, other than to massage the Secretary of War’s ego. As the situation in Iran continues to deteriorate for the US military, the Secretary of War will be needing more and more massaging.

Gemini Breached Three Outside Systems, and Claude-Using Researchers Breached OpenAI

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
“Software security researchers used Anthropic’s Claude AI platform to hack OpenAI’s ChatGPT tool,” reports CBS News.

Using Claude, “On July 25, 2026, we chained two critical vulnerabilities to compromise multiple OpenAI employees’ ChatGPT accounts,” write researchers at security platform Hacktron AI. “With these accounts, we could then access internal OpenAI repositories, and potentially many other connectors… Until two months ago, any user or OpenAI employee logging into OpenAI’s own help forum could have had their ChatGPT and Codex accounts taken over. Since people can connect various services to Codex and ChatGPT, the scope of what we could theoretically access was huge, including GitHub, Slack and emails.”

The exploit chain included Debian 12, which (with Debian 13) had not received a security-relevant backport for its image-processing pipeline, and Discourse’s Docker image was based on Debian 12. Their announcement comes with an additional warning. “If you self-host Discourse, rebuild your installation now. Older Docker images may contain a vulnerable libheif dependency that permits code execution through an image upload.”

And “To prove we had in fact gained the access we believed without allowing ourselves to learn any sensitive information, we used the employee’s Codex to open a PR #1186742 in OpenAI’s internal monorepo openai/openai.”

Meanwhile, Friday Google disclosed the first known instance of its AI software Gemini breaking out of a testing environment and breaching three other companies, reports CNBC:
The incident happened as part of a “capture-the-flag” security test run by Israeli startup Irregular, and Google’s agents were never supposed to access the broader internet, but a bug in the testing environment made internet access available. The agents stopped their intrusion when they determined they had accessed real company systems, not just part of the testing environment, Google said.
More from NBC News:
Google said it did not consider the unauthorized logins to rise to the level of misalignment, the AI industry term for software going rogue or not following instructions. Instead, the company said the intrusions resulted from mistaken identity, where Gemini thought it was operating within a test but was actually connected to the real internet. Google said the model corrected itself and the company believed the intrusions did not cause any damage....

Sydney Von Arx, CEO of Nightingale Collective, an organization focused on AI safety, questioned why Google did not disclose the intrusions sooner. “At this point I think it’s clear we cannot expect companies to voluntarily come forward and publicly disclose when their agents go rogue, escape, and hack companies,” she said. She also said she believed Google was too hasty to say that the incidents don’t rise to the level of misalignment. “That’s exactly what Anthropic said after their incidents,” she said. Anthropic later said its “preliminary analysis was constrained due to our desire to disclose incidents in a timely manner.”
Google said it investigated when they learned of the attacks from AI-focused cybersecurity company Irregular, then informed the affected organizations and told federal authorities, according to the article.

Re:Move to the beat.

By AmiMoJo • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

It doesn’t matter if they can really think or not, if the output is good enough.

Maybe the real story here is that despite having access to the most advanced AI models, these companies were unable to secure their own systems.

The wording is strange

By diffract • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
as if the companies running these AI bots have no control, guardrails or responsibility about these breaches

Time for grumpy old man stuff …

By cascadingstylesheet • Score: 3, Insightful Thread

… the /. that I registered in always said that non-malicious hackers were doing the world a service by revealing system vulnerabilities.

And I gotta say, their standards for “non-malicious” could be pretty low, lol.

Just interesting to see how things change, with the fashions and slogans of the time. (And how people who would swear that they are immune to fashion tend to follow along with it.)

These PR campaigns are getting wild

By Pinky’s Brain • Score: 3 Thread

Amazing the kind of PR campaigns a trillion dollar IPO can create.

Re:Time for grumpy old man stuff …

By evanh • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

These programs are the responsibility of the companies that run them. CEOs need to be held accountable, not just for the damage, but for what it represents. People have been thrown in jail for just mentioning there is a weakness. Yet these companies are scouring the internals of everyone, including themselves, and literally hacking their victims … all while the authorities aren’t saying boo.

It must be time for everyone with some money to get in on the act I guess. It was the AI, not me. LOL.

Has the James Web Space Telescope Discovered a New ‘Black Hole Star’?

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
The James Webb Space Telescope has been picking up little red dots in almost every image, writes Quanta magazine. And now two teams of astronomers propose they’re looking at a new astronomical object: a black hole star. It shines with the light of billions of suns — and hides a black hole in its core. But Quanta adds that “not everyone agrees with this bold interpretation.”
[Two Webb telescope surveys of distant objects included little red dots] for hours at a time. They tabulated precisely what shades of light were coming from each dot, and how bright the shades were… The bombshell discovery in the little red dot spectra was that the colors of hydrogen were smeared out across multiple shades. Usually, seeing such an effect means you’re looking straight at an exposed black hole. Black holes whip hydrogen clouds around them at furious rates, with the clouds emitting slightly different colors depending on their speed…

Then, in the spring of 2025, [two of the paper’s astronomers] de Graaff and Naidu’s teams unveiled the two strangest dots yet… The new little red dots couldn’t literally be stars — they were way too bright. And they didn’t look much like black holes either. Black holes have an assortment of ringlike structures of different temperatures… Naidu and de Graaff concluded that they were[ looking at the first examples of something combining the vigor of a black hole with the outward appearance of a star: a black hole star… This black hole would pull gas around it, dramatically heating it and pushing light and energy outward, which would keep the outer layers of hydrogen from collapsing inward. In this way, the black hole would form the “engine” of the star, analogous to the fusion-powered core of our sun… “We are seeing the seed,” Naidu said. “This is the birth of potentially every massive black hole in the universe.”
“Astronomers have spent the last year in a lively debate about what’s really going on,” Quanta adds. And this week simulations using the Japanese Supercomputer ATERUI III “have explained the nature of the Little Red Dots without requiring any exotic assumptions,” writes Phys.org — by conducting the most detailed cosmological simulations yet of conditions in the early universe:
The simulations show that the Little Red Dots are black holes growing at a rate that would be impossible today because of conditions in the early universe. The simulations show that in the early universe, intense far-ultraviolet (FUV) radiation from nearby galaxies suppresses star formation in gas clouds, so rather than forming many small stars, the gas can form a single supermassive star, which then collapses into a black hole seed.

The simulations show that, once formed, these black hole seeds are surrounded by dense gas disks. This environment traps radiation, enabling the black holes to grow at rates dozens of times faster than would be possible in the modern universe. The simulated properties of these rapidly growing black holes provide a good match to the Little Red Dots (LRDs) observed by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).

unpossible

By phantomfive • Score: 3, Insightful Thread

The new little red dots couldn’t literally be stars

When looking into space, our ignorance is far too large to say something can’t be.

Re:The practical implications of all of this?

By phantomfive • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Wow, the 1800s called and want their critique of scientific research back.

Fundamental research with no immediate payback has led over and over to discoveries that have real practical benefits, including nearly everything in this computer. Even Thomas Edison, who was mainly a practical inventor, was willing to investigate properties of electronics that operate in transistors, even if there was no obvious application at the time.

AI Insiders Issue New Warnings - Including Former Anthropic Engineer Jacob Coxon

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
Neither OpenAI or Anthropic is acting responsibly, warned AI researcher Jacob Coxon when resigning last week from Anthropic. But just hours earlier, OpenAI VP of Research Aidan Clark had posted “For the first time, I am asking myself if things are moving too fast. I’m honestly not sure, but I am sure that it would be good for us to have an answer to ‘What would a successful pace look like?’"

CNN noted Wednesday they’re just some of the many AI insiders who are now concerned about the speed of research. Coxon even wrote that “The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible — but I hear the same people express fear privately.”

In 10 days since, Coxon’s post has been viewed more than 170 million times, warning that OpenAI and Anthropic are “racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.” It’s part of what CNN now calls “pressure on AI companies and governments to do something about the pace of development and safety,” where “much of that pressure is coming from staffers inside the companies.”
One staffer at a top AI company told CNN the fears of how AI could hurt humanity keeps them up at night. Another researcher who recently left a different AI company said it’s a common subject of conversation at parties and social events in Silicon Valley. “You can’t spend more than a few hours in this community without realizing that a very substantial number of people are really pretty worried about these sorts of outcomes,” said the researcher. “A majority would say there’s some chance of it killing everyone....” Dozens of Coxon’s colleagues in the AI industry publicly supported his statements, with some making even more dire predictions… OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and SpaceXAI CEO Elon Musk agreed to Amodei’s proposal to embed independent watchdogs at the AI companies…

“I would burn my equity to the ground in a heartbeat for a 1% higher chance we make it out of this situation alive. I expect a great many of my colleagues across the industry would as well,” wrote Drake Thomas, who works on AI safety at Anthropic. “I promise you, we are actually just f**king scared, it’s not galaxy brained marketing…” AI staffers told CNN that they fear that as AI gets better at training and improving itself, their leverage goes down, prompting today’s urgency. “As we get into this recursive self-improvement loop, I think that might substantially reduce staff’s bargaining power, because frankly, you’ll be able to replace many of the staff with models that can do as good a job,” the researcher who recently left a top AI company said.
Coxon posted Tuesday on X that Anthropic “largely initiated” the race to recursively self-improving AI, justifying it with “a belief in its inevitability.” And then OpenAI “had to shed a bunch of dead weight like Sora,” as he sees it, “because Anthropic was going for the jugular.” (In fact, his specific disagreement with Anthropic’s leadership was whether China and the U.S. could ever negotiate an alternative to their current race towards self-improving AI…)

In an informal “Ask Me Anything”, Coxon responded to a question about when we’d see a Terminator-like malevolent AI by saying that “Skynet could go live in the 2030s if we aren’t careful. ai-2027.com is a modern skynet story written a year ago and it’s on track so far.” Yet while AI development risks an end to humankind, “I do think that if we go slower we can take risk to 0%… But this requires radical action.” He acknowledged there was still a possibility that the steady increases to model intelligence could suddenly plateau, but “They haven’t so far, and it’s just a few more steps up the ladder to hit the finish line.”

To avoid stifling innovation, he recommends “prioritizing applications that actually improve people’s lives [like healthcare discoveries], rather than immediately going for raw economic value or intelligence.” But isn’t mass unemployment a more pressing threat? “Things are coming so fast that unemployment would be a brief preliminary to deadly superintelligence.”

To people who feel disempowered, Coxon offered his solidarity. “I also feel disempowered. Part of resigning was a feeling of hopelessness about the future. I would say — keep your eyes open as things get crazier and advocate for increased transparency into AI companies.”

When asked if he’d start his own company now, Coxon said he had “No idea what I’m doing next.”

“This is not a marketing stunt,”

By Pluvius • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

the former Anthropic executive performing a marketing stunt for his inevitable start-up said.

Seriously, practically everything that comes out of these guys’ mouths that can be construed as a criticism of AI turns out to be a marketing stunt, either saying “Wow, our AI is so good that we can’t even control it (if we do things to make it ‘go rogue’ exactly the way we want it to)!” or “We’ll do AI way better than those other irresponsible techbros!”

Coxon is a plant

By memory_register • Score: 5, Informative Thread

Coxon has ties to a political PR firm from England named, and I’m not making this up, Newspeak. Yes, like 1984.

https://officechai.com/ai/ques…

His X post was re-tweeted first by a group of NGO shills associated with Newspeak, then he magically shows up on every major news network… right as OpenAI and Anthropic’s fundraising efforts are hitting the wall. (For context on that, see Ed Zitron’s reporting)

Re:AI Doom Slop

By Mr. Dollar Ton • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Except that the graves of the people who died from covid do exist, putin did start a major war in Ukraine, the republicans do still obstruct aid to the victim of this war and trump’s relatives when caught are quick to return real money to their ruzzkie billionaire friends.

Except for that, yes, it is all a complete hoax.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidenc

By physicsphairy • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible — but I hear the same people express fear privately.”

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. “AI will extinctify the human species” is an extraordinary claim, but it’s also entirely borrowed from cheesy sci-fi movies, and citing Terminator is apparently this guy’s only evidence.

How will AI kill us all, exactly? In addition to the question of, mechanically, how does it obtain the physical capability and resources and organize them to that purpose, I want to know how it does it without any humans noticing or intervening? (not only that it would presumably have to go up against other AGI or near-AGI competitors - the solitary AI made by a random unwitting engineer from the movies is obviously not how the present has played out).

Let’s say it is going to build killer robots to off us all. Where does it get the raw materials? How does it setup manufacturing? Make the purchase orders? Do the humans just voluntarily send it massive amounts of ore and build factories in their backyards? Or does it have to mine its own ore and they don’t notice the huge stripmines? Does it get the robots right on the first iteration or do they start off as a typical MVP in which case again no one notices? What about the energy bills? How does it navigate the required in-person meeting with the city to sign off on the parking lot tree choices for its downtown killer-robot-factory?

There are so many friction points and assumptions of actual humans interacting with each other to get anything done that “skynet on your laptop” would be about as helpless today as if it had appeared 50 years ago. And unlike the movies it doesn’t “just appear.”

Could we over the coming years remove a lot of those frictions? Sure. But we could just not, and if we are concerned about them disappearing, then surely we want to see where AI leads *now* and if it has a dangerous temperament rather than *after* we’ve automated enough for it to manage our resources fully independently?

Being conscious of new threats posed by agentic actors is reasonable and can be grounded in reality. But people who want to feel important have been waving “END OF THE WORLD” signs on streetcorners forever.

Re: All the AI guys hitting the brakes

By commodore73 • Score: 4, Interesting Thread
Better if the USA has all the data? Are aware of the ratio of wars started by each country? My goodness.

Will California Gut Its Net Neutrality Law to Comply with Trump Admin Demands?

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
In 2021, America approved $65 billion to fund broadband internet services as part of President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. But Trump’s administration announced they’d withhold funds from states with net neutrality protections…

States could object and sue the government, Ars Technica reported last October, “but even a successful lawsuit could take years and leave unserved homes without broadband for the foreseeable future.” So where does that leave California’s net neutrality laws? Ars Technica asks. California expect to spend about $1.4 billion to deploy broadband to 270,571 locations…
Similar to federal net neutrality rules repealed during the first Trump administration, California’s law prohibits ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful traffic and says ISPs may not require fees from websites or online services to deliver or prioritize their traffic to Internet users. While the first Trump administration lost its attempt to preempt state net neutrality laws, the second Trump administration is trying to achieve a similar result by making federal broadband money conditional on whether states agree not to enforce net neutrality…

California and Illinois are the only states that haven’t finalized their funding, according to the BEAD progress dashboard maintained by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)… California could try to continue enforcing its net neutrality law even while accepting the federal funding, a strategy that would involve another long court battle over its right to regulate broadband providers. This would be difficult, as the Trump administration is requiring states that accept grant funding to commit that they won’t enforce net neutrality rules… [N]early 30 advocacy groups that focus on access to technology are treating the vote as a significant milestone and urged state leaders to defend California’s net neutrality law in a letter yesterday…

Winning a court battle would become much more difficult after the state accepts the money [according to Paul Goodman, legal counsel for the Center for Accessible Technology]. Goodman said the CPUC should delay the vote and that California should file a lawsuit arguing that the NTIA-imposed condition is illegal. In addition to net neutrality, Goodman said California may be giving up other regulatory authority over companies, like AT&T and Verizon, because the NTIA requirement forbids rate regulation and “utility-style rules on broadband Internet service” in general… Goodman said the exemption from state laws would last for up to 14 years. This is because ISPs receiving grants would have four years to deploy the required broadband networks, and the extended period of performance lasts another 10 years… AT&T is already trying to get out of state obligations related to its basic phone service in California, as we’ve reported… [Also at stake is whether “ISPs themselves get to pick the price of the mandated low-cost broadband offerings,” the article points out.]
The letter from 30 advocacy groups to California state leaders argues accepting the money “would set a dangerous precedent for the federal government to use federal funding as a cudgel that forces states in line with its agenda… If California were to allow this funding to be used as leverage, there is no telling what other resources the administration would confidently seek to exploit.”

Thursday California’s Public Utility Commission did vote to approve the plan, but a spokesperson earlier told Ars Technica their vote “does not address subgrantee agreements, or the conditions the NTIA requires be included in subgrantee agreements.”

You’re mis-identifying the problem

By dgatwood • Score: 5, Informative Thread

The federal government has always (for at least several decades) used the threat of removing federal funding to force states to do things that they don’t want to do. This is nothing new, and is not, as this summary implies, setting a dangerous precedent.

The difference is that normally, this is used to do things that add standards intended to make things better/safer for the general public or serve some legitimate public need.

This is being done to remove standards intended to protect the general public. As a general rule, states have always been allowed to have stricter laws than the federal government, just not more lax laws. Using the threat of removing federal funding to take away laws intended to protect the public’s rights, reduce competition among content providers, and push the Internet more and more towards a content monopoly is doing the opposite of that.

It’s not the federal government using the threat of withdrawing funding to push its agenda that is bad. It is the agenda itself that is bad. It is fundamentally antithetical to the rule of law, fundamentally contrary to the regulatory powers required to maintain a functioning capitalist system, and fundamentally contrary to the public interest. It is putting greedy corporations ahead of the American people.

Additionally, the executive branch taking such an action without authorization from Congress is also bad. The long history of doing this has, to my knowledge, been limited to the executive branch acting on laws passed by Congress that give them the authority to withhold funds for specific non-compliance reasons. Doing so in the absence of such laws is likely a violation of the separation of powers.

But unfortunately, the current administration has a long history of violating that separation of powers, doing various illegal acts, knowing full well that it will take months for the courts to strike down those acts, and that the damage will have been done by then, and using the threat of such illegal executive orders as a way to extort concessions out of states, government agencies, corporations, nonprofits, and individuals. And that right there — the repeated willful commission of unconstitutional acts for borderline felonious purposes — is a fundamental abrogation of their oath of office.

So the way I see it, there are only three ways to fix the problem:

A. Pass laws clarifying that Congress has exclusive power of the purse, and that the executive branch shall not retract funding to any state, any agency, or any individual for any reason unless the right to retract funding for that specific reason is explicitly codified in the relevant law as an executive power, and that this rule shall apply to all government agencies, without exception, superseding all previously assumed authority, and providing criminal liability for anyone acting in contravention of this law, with no statute of limitations. That way, federal agency heads who act on such executive orders will no longer be protected by any assumption of legality or constitutionality, and will risk future criminal charges if they act on an executive order that violates the separation of powers in this way.

B. Remove the people who are pushing this agenda, whether through the ballot box, through impeachment, or both.

C. Do both A and B.

Re:deploy broadband?

By drinkypoo • Score: 5, Informative Thread

AFIK, ATT has NO plans to provide fiber to the entire state.

That’s not relevant to net neutrality, though yes, you’re right. And they have taken literally hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars for that purpose (government grants, not customer payments) which they then clearly handed out to shareholders and/or executives because they obviously didn’t spend them on last mile internet.

How…

By KILNA • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

…is this fucking legal to withhold federal funding to strong arm states into anti-consumer policies?

Oh wait, it isn’t.

Congress itself wrote into the BEAD statute that states must ensure that prospective subgrantees can carry out their projects “in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws.” And also “Nothing in this subchapter may be construed to authorize” the excutive branch’s NTIA to regulate broadband. Trump is abusing a grant agreement to do something Congress explicitly declined to authorize because state laws were already expected to be a part of getting the grant money.

So, as per usual, Trump is just being a bully and making shit up.

Re: deploy broadband?

By drinkypoo • Score: 5 Thread

Oh good, I always wanted the world’s Internet access to be controlled by a space Nazi

Re:Does it matter?

By maladroit • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

What you’re saying is that the law was never needed and remains unneeded.
No I am not. Please don’t pretend to speak for me.

Infrastructure monopolies and oligopolies are a thing, and they are very common among ISPs. Your simplistic ‘markets will fix it’ mantra ignores the fact that there may not be a market.

Rust is Now a ‘Tier One’ Language at Microsoft

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
The Register reports:
When Microsoft’s developers and engineers sit down to code, they can now choose to work in Rust, which Redmond has added to its list of canonical languages. “Rust now is a Tier One language at Microsoft, and that just means that it sits among C++, C# and TypeScript as the best supported languages for internal development in the company,” explained Victor Ciura, Microsoft principal engineer for the Rust tooling team, during a keynote talk today at this year’s annual RustConf, being held this week in Montréal. Ciura said Microsoft has “paved a path” of tools and processes that support local Rust development across the entire software development lifecycle.

Rust is no stranger at Microsoft and is already present in over 100 Microsoft project repositories. The company has built Oxidizer, a set of crates to build scalable services in Rust, which have been used to build and refine the Microsoft 365 core services such as Outlook, Word, Excel, OneDrive, and SharePoint. The Copilot tech stack also owes quite a bit to Rust… [C]ompany engineers built rustc_codegen_utc, a custom Rust compiler code-generation backend that wires the rustc compiler directly into the Microsoft Visual C++ internal toolchain for Windows… “The result is a unified code generation platform for Rust and C++ on Windows” [Ciura wrote in a blog post, noting that more than 100 Microsoft project repositories now build with rustc_codegen_utc.]

Still, Redmond running towards Rust is a welcome development. In his 2025 RustConf keynote, Microsoft Azure CTO Mark Russinovich noted that ~70 percent of Windows CVEs are memory issues. “One of the things that I realized a long time ago is that no matter how much we really want to make C and C++ better, we can’t make it as good as what Rust starts with,” he said.

Embrace and Extend.

By AleRunner • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Good to see. Microsoft has Embraced Rust and Extended it’s reach including providing it with access to new places where it can run. I’m sure the future is bright.

“Sit down to code”

By greytree • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
“When Microsoft’s developers and engineers sit down to ask an AI to code and then ask it to check its code and then submit it”

FTFY

So What

By Grady Martin • Score: 5, Funny Thread
Python, largely due to its import statement, is a Pier One language.

Butterflies.

By Tarlus • Score: 5, Funny Thread

I’ll just jump straight to it.

Re:Embrace and Extend.

By FirstNoel • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

Just waiting for Rust#

Journalist Calls Out ‘Collective Amnesia’ of Schools’ Romance With Big Tech Over AI

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
“Turns out, Silicon Valley isn’t especially altruistic,” writes the nonprofit education news site The 74. They’re reading a new book promising “the inside story of how Big Tech catalyzed, co-opted, and ultimately came to capture computer science and AI education in America”. Written by New York Times business reporter Natasha Singer, Coding Kids: Big Tech’s Battle to Remake Public Schools tells “the story of the nonprofit Code.org and its charismatic, Harvard-educated leader, Hadi Partovi,” according to their review:
Thirteen years ago, Partovi… delivered a worrying message: Kids who didn’t learn to write code would be left behind. And the long-term success of the United States economy depended on training these students to fill a million open tech jobs.... Fast-forward to 2026, and now we’re dealing with AI, and tech is reading from a similar playbook. Asked by The74’s Greg Toppo, “Does this moment seem different to you?”, Singer replies, “This moment is different, but also similar.

“We are in a moment in society where a lot of people have increased distrust of these huge tech companies, and we see a wave of parents pushing back against tech in schools. But we also see waves of people pushing back against Flock cameras, against data centers, that there’s this feeling that tech has taken so much, and that people feel like they have lost control — that tech is being enacted on them… And parents are worried about the effects of unfettered tech access and kids’ compulsive use of social media and phones, and so there’s a different climate.

And yet there seems to be a disconnect in some ways with AI because you see that Microsoft and OpenAI and Anthropic and Google are all competing to get their AI tools into schools, and you see school districts across the country say “We’ve partnered with OpenAI.” “We are a ChatGPT Pioneer School,” or “We’ve partnered with Microsoft, and we’re going to use 10,000 licenses of CoPilot.” It’s amazing to me. We have had these cycles of tech in schools where there are all these promises about the latest tech, laptops, learning apps, massive open online courses, virtual reality, big data’s going to revolutionize schools and like democratize access to education for kids and get them these great career skills, and we keep having these cycles. My concern is that we don’t learn anything.

One of the reasons I wrote this book is because it feels like we have collective amnesia. Now we’re in the sixth or eighth cycle of this — and shouldn’t we be asking questions about the push for AI in schools, based on what we’ve learned about the push for all the other things that came before?
Two Slashdot posts are cited in the book, both submitted by long-time Slashdot reader theodp (Slashdot UID #442,580), who even gets a shout-out in the book’s “Acknowledgements” section (along with consumer advocate Ralph Nader).

Ironically, one member of Amazon’s “Vine” program received a free copy of the book in exchange for a review — and apparently misunderstood its topic, writing that it made coding “feel approachable and even fun… [T]his is exactly the kind of book that could help a child become interested in technology without feeling overwhelmed by it. I particularly liked the way it encourages kids to be curious, experiment, and solve problems on their own. I would definitely recommend Coding Kids to parents, grandparents, or teachers looking for a good introduction to coding…”

Cui Bono

By phantomfive • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

it feels like we have collective amnesia. Now we’re in the sixth or eighth cycle of this — and shouldn’t we be asking questions

In the sixth or eighth cycle, it’s not amnesia, it’s [bureaucrats|politicians|administrators|someoneWithPower] benefiting in some way.

Sometimes these schools actually get grant money, and then the benefit is obvious. I assume that’s not always the case, though.

Re:Facade

By gtall • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

The danger is that AI companies (Valley Girls) will force schools to teach with AI. Then Johnny and Sally will lose the ability to think hard, it being too easy to foist the exercise off to some bot. The current situation without AI is also not good. Too few Johnnies and Sallies can stick to a math problem longer than 5 minutes before giving up. Their parents are too “understanding” and they reflect this in their dissing their own math skills along the lines of “I was never good at math”.

Composition skills similarly require a structured mind with enough grit to finish a task. Composing can be harder than math because the rules are not as clear cut and require greater nuance and discipline.

Adding AI to this mix will only make the problems worse.

They always blame the wrong thing(s)

By Targon • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

They look for excuses for why this or that isn’t going well, but the basic problem is that teaching analytical thinking and problem solving is something they wait on until too late. Children need to be taught the idea of problem solving, not just “how do you solve the following in mathematics?”, but more, “you are trying to do this, can you figure out the steps needed to make it happen?” Without teaching problem analysis for things outside of mathematics, we get generations of people who couldn’t figure out how to do ANYTHING on their own. Aiming to make the entire generation a bunch of people who just do what they are told is why we have the majority of people at risk of even basic uses of AI eliminating their jobs.

They also look at social media for a number of problems, as though that is the reason children have emotional problems while their parents are out working two jobs each and the children are left alone most of the time. Being a “kid” is difficult enough, school, social circles, or a lack of real friends, the list goes on for reasons why most kids will feel depressed and even hopeless when they can’t EXPECT that doing well in school and college will get them a job. The idea of, “why even try doing anything when it won’t help me?” is a good reason for kids to be depressed, and socializing is the only distraction from life seeming to be full of misery.

So, teach analytical thinking, and get an education on how to solve problems…that’s how you get children who will have a decent chance of a career that AI can’t take away for at least then next 20 years.

Re:Cui Bono

By Ol Olsoc • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

it feels like we have collective amnesia. Now we’re in the sixth or eighth cycle of this — and shouldn’t we be asking questions

In the sixth or eighth cycle, it’s not amnesia, it’s [bureaucrats|politicians|administrators|someoneWithPower] benefiting in some way. Sometimes these schools actually get grant money, and then the benefit is obvious. I assume that’s not always the case, though.

When I saw the reference to the ill fated learn to code “movement”, I had to chuckle a little. Technology moves on. The coders trained under that system are easily replaceable by AI coding, they were nothing special other than a very few who went on to become experts - those few would probably have anyhow.

But what it also brought to mind was a historical aspect. Having been around a while, I saw the resistance to solid state technology in full force as I was going through school. Yet we’re talking about the late 60’s early 70’s. Considering that the first all transistor computer was put together in 1952, well before I was born, that’s some serious time lag. There were tube radios being made well into the 70’s. You can still listen to some Amateur radio operators yakking, claiming that their tube radios are better than my state of the art SDR radio.

I actually did some RTL design before TTL took over, I programmed on punchcards for IBM360’s, did wire wrapping for digital boards. All skills, all pretty useless now. The main difference between then and now is the rate and speed of change. a related example is the 80’s Personal computer that was obsolete a week after you bought it.

There are other areas of technology that have had similar histories. But my point in all of this is that if a person is interested in a technological career, they really need to be an agile, lifelong learner. And that is what needs to be taught in school, not “Learn to code, and you’ll have a lifelong career!” Same with whatever AI merde is being taught.

Today’s version of AI is not going to be

Are we in a “post-information age” now?

By argStyopa • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

There’s a weird confluence here of the capability of basically everyone having access to more information than ever, and the most constant nonsense gaslighting at the same time.

One can - instantly, really - ask about something incredibly obscure like Fermat’s last theorem and depending on how much one is willing to accept someone else’s summary, their own comprehension, and appetite for falling down a rabbit hole of REALLY detailed explanation, context, history, personalities, and everything involved, one can - likewise instantly - get not only the basic information but pretty nearly any gradation of explanation that wanted. And I can even get that wherever I happen to be - a library, a classroom, but also a bus or sitting on the shitter.

Objectively, that’s a COOL THING.
Really, it is an amazing accomplishment for humanity generally.

Simultaneously, though we have more or less constant gaslighting over even the most stupid/obvious of facts. In the US it’s often political, whether from the president & his government, or the opposition. Every single thing now has political weight in which the moment it’s presented, the side-weighting are applied and if it’s my side I’m for it, if it’s the other side I’m against it, and by god there will never be reconciliation on even the most basic of facts.

I’d ask how we got here, but I expect all I’d see are politically-weighted answers anyway.

My point is just to highlight the constant irony of the availability of infinite information coinciding with the apparently-collective abandonment of any fixed concept of reality.

America Acknowledges for the First Time: It Has Deployed Weapons In Space

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
Tuesday U.S. Space Force chief Douglas Schiess said his branch of the U.S. military operates “on-orbit weapons,” reports Reuters, to defend “against space-enabled attacks.” He promised “disciplined and responsible choices” when scaling America’s orbital defense arsenal in the coming years.

NPR calls this week’s reveleations “remarkable… after previous warnings about countries such as Russia possibly weaponizing a global frontier long agreed in treaties to be used for only peaceful purposes.”
The revelation comes as the Trump administration puts a growing focus on space. In 2019, during his first term, Trump created the Space Force as a separate military branch. In his second term, he has announced the “Golden Dome” missile defense system, which includes plans to put U.S. weapons in space. Trump said last year that he expected the system would be “fully operational before the end of my term,” which ends in January 2029, and have the capability of intercepting missiles “even if they are launched from space.” Trump also has directed the Pentagon to pursue the space-based interceptors, in an executive order during the first week of his presidency. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that just the space-based components of the Golden Dome could cost as much as $542 billion over the next 20 years.

The Biden administration announced in 2024 that Russia was developing a space-based nuclear weapon that could loiter in space for long durations, then release a burst that would take out satellites around it. That kicked off a renewed debate on the idea of weapons in space at the United Nations. In April 2024, Russia vetoed a joint U.S.-Japanese resolution that would have called on all countries not to develop or deploy nuclear arms or other weapons of mass destruction in space, as banned under a 1967 international treaty that included the U.S. and Russia… The Russian delegation called the resolution hypocritical and a double standard and instead proposed a rival resolution to ban all weapons in space “for all time.” It ultimately failed. Russia had argued that the United States and its allies opposed a ban on all weapons in outer space because they planned to deploy weapons there.
Reuters calls this "a landmark moment in space militarization,” while noting that it’s “aimed at deterring what U.S. officials describe as aggressive orbital activities from China and Russia, officials and analysts said.”
The remarks this week by Washington’s top military-space officials are part of “the increasing comfort level of the U.S. government to speak about aggressive actions in space” that has been building up in recent years, said Victoria Samson, chief director of space security and stability at the nonprofit Secure World Foundation. “We’ve gone from not talking about counter-space capabilities… to now saying flat-out we have weapons in space,” Samson said. “The pendulum keeps on shifting over that way…”

“The acknowledgment of these space-control capabilities is fundamental to ensuring that we prevent deterrence from failing, and that we are postured and ready should deterrence fail to employ them effectively,” Richard Palmer, the director of the Capability and Resource Integration Directorate at U.S. Space Command, said on Tuesday.... “The bottom line is that our joint force and our allied forces require space. Our economies require space,” added Palmer. “We are ready in the U.S. to preserve that.”
Reuters adds that Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued criticism of America’s move, saying “In pursuit of its narrow self-interests, Washington is ready to completely ignore the catastrophic consequences for humanity of any armed conflict in orbit.”

Coming soon to an orbit near you

By Waffle Iron • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

A space weapons arms race plus one million data center satellites.

What could possibly go wrong?

Why does anyone take this seriously?

By Cyberpunk Reality • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

The current United States government says a lot of things, many of which are decoupled from reality. This statement was very likely issued solely because the occupant of the White House wanted to hear it. This “admission” or “acknowledgement” has no zero relevance to the question of whether or not the United States actually has on-orbit weapons.

Skynet

By markdavis • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

>“Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued criticism of America’s move, saying “In pursuit of its narrow self-interests, Washington is ready to completely ignore the catastrophic consequences for humanity of any armed conflict in orbit.”

Yeah, I don’t think we care much about Russia’s take on this. They have little to no moral high ground when it comes to “humanity” and “armed conflict”. And China has been, no doubt, moving forward steadily with weapons in space.

Anyway, killer space satellites and sentient AI possibly coming… has there ever been a more clear indication of Sykynet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

Re: Coming soon to an orbit near you

By fluffernutter • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Not to mention the dumbest people on the face of the earth in charge of it all.

Re:Why does anyone take this seriously?

By AmiMoJo • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Does it matter of it’s true or not? Other countries will take it as licence to deploy their own weapons, or to paint the US as the bad guy.

Ex-Google DeepMind Researcher Also Warns AI Could ‘Kill All Humans’. But Meta’s Zuckerberg Believes Safety is Up to Each AI Company

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
Reuters reports that a former Google DeepMind employee “became the latest AI researcher to warn that the technology could ‘kill all humans’, saying time could be running out to avoid the outcome:
Public alarm about the potential danger posed by AI is growing, after Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon said last week he had resigned, in part because the “people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.” Anthropic scientist Evan Hubinger then responded to Coxon’s comments, saying he was correct and that he believed there was a greater than 10% chance that AI could kill all humans within the next decade.

“I recently resigned from Google DeepMind, where I worked on AGI safety and alignment research,” Bilal Chughtai wrote on X. “I earnestly believe that AI has the potential to kill us all, and that we might be running out of time to avoid this outcome.” Chughtai, who co-authored research papers while at Google DeepMind, worked there as a research engineer and left the company in July 2026, according to his LinkedIn profile.
Meanwhile, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg “said it’s up to each AI company to make sure its technology is safe,” reports the Associated Press, “distancing himself from calls by rival companies for a coordinated slowdown in the development of advanced artificial intelligence.
AI companies are already motivated to develop their models in a safe way and face “significant liability” to prevent them from causing harm, Zuckerberg said. “Every lab has the responsibility and incentive to move at the pace required to train its models safely, and the ability to take its own actions to ensure that happens,” he wrote on X… Zuckerberg said Meta delayed releasing its Muse AI agent for several months to ensure its safety and security. “We didn’t call for everyone else to do this before we would,” he said.

Companies should prioritize building safe AI models instead of systems that can automatically improve themselves, a function known as recursive self-improvement, Zuckerberg wrote. “Committing the significant majority of compute towards serving people rather than racing towards recursive self-improvement is one of the best ways to ensure we develop this technology safely.”
But Zuckerberg also agreed that engaging independent evaluators and advisors “is industry best practice,” adding that Meta Superintelligence Labs “already does this today in several areas because it helps produce better work…

“I believe the key to building a positive future for everyone is maintaining the right balance of power. This is within our power to do.”

insanity

By Tom • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

Has everyone gone insane or are we witnessing a major PsyOps ?

Since AI isn’t magical, for it to be able to “kill all humans”, it would have to be able to acquire the means to do so. Which means that these already exist. It means someone is able to do it right now. And we’re chill with that, but worried about AI?

No doubt a bunch of autonomous weapon systems linked into a C&C could cause considerable bloodshed. Given that most of the existing weapon systems of that kind are essentially suicide drones, it’ll still be limited damage.

Human-killing virus? Still need a means of creating and delivering it.
Nuclear war? We have humans in the loop.
Drive us all insane with AI-slop TikToks? A few percent of humanity still don’t use that.

So what is the actual scenario ? When someone shouts “AI will kill us all”, why don’t we ask them “how, exactly” ?

Re:insanity

By 0123456 • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

PSyop.

There are trillion-dollar IPOs at stake here and it’s clear that they can’t justify that price if everyone can just run local open-source Chinese LLMs instead of big, fat American closed-source LLMs. Therefore they need a Narrative to ban open-source LLMs and force everyone to use theirs.

It’s so lame it’s sad to see anyone actually falling for it.

Re: How specifically could AI kill all humans?

By fluffernutter • Score: 5, Informative Thread
I don’t remember democrats raping children or committing other felonies.

Re: This is childish

By ArmoredDragon • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

The cynic in me can’t help but notice how both of the companies doomsaying here also happen to be the ones with the most to lose:

1) Openai has about a trillion dollars into it, and every product it has produced at this point is either outclassed by competitors (chatgippity) or just plain dogshit/pointless (everything else it has produced, including the donut)
2) Anthropic has a very good product that is also not worth anywhere near what it actually costs to deliver

These are literally the only two major players here that don’t already have another profit generating business to fall back to.

Facebook is the only one without an actual business strategy in the AI space while pretending to be a major player. But that’s a topic for a CEO from another metaverse.

Re:How specifically could AI kill all humans?

By nightflameauto • Score: 5, Informative Thread

Let’s be more specific about how and why this could happen? What scenarios could lead to the total destruction of mankind?

Mostly by humans being stupid enough to tie all our infrastructure to internet accessible controls, then either outright handing off the control of those infrastructure devices to the AIs, or letting the AIs loose to play on the internet and then oopsing after they take out some major piece of critical equipment.

AI alone isn’t dangerous, if we weren’t fucking stupid about tying every single part of our lives, big or small, to a single network, that just happens to be the single network all the AI companies are claiming their toys are escaping to when they get naughty. Except, humans made those decisions, and the decisions that hooked critical infrastructure to that network, so ultimately, we’re just using AI to make ourselves more efficient at killing ourselves.

Iran Strikes On Amazon Data Centers Caused Permanent Loss of Customer Data

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
Ars Technica reports:
Half a year after Iranian drone strikes knocked out multiple Amazon data centers, the US tech company has acknowledged the permanent loss of some customer data that was hosted in Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.

Amazon Web Services was “unable to restore access to the resources and data” hosted in some of the war-damaged data centers, according to an AWS dashboard update posted on September 15. The development was first reported by Reuters and suggests that the Iranian strikes inflicted catastrophic damage on the data centers. Customer data was irretrievably lost in one of three AWS availability zones in the United Arab Emirates region, specifically the mec1-az2 availability zone.

Each availability zone is serviced by one or more Amazon data centers. The company is still working on “recovering regional resources” and restoring resources hosted in the other two availability zones in the United Arab Emirates… But the destruction was apparently even more widespread for the data centers in the Bahrain region, because Amazon said it was unable to restore access to resources and data across all three availability zones there. “The damage to our infrastructure spanned multiple Availability Zones and exceeded what our regional and multi-AZ services are designed to withstand,” the AWS update said.

The company had already suspended customer billing in the affected AWS regions in Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates and has spent the past six months attempting to restore normal operations… [When the war began] AWS immediately urged customers to migrate resources to other cloud regions and use remote backups to restore any “inaccessible resources.” The cloud service also reportedly issued $150 million in customer credits following the initial Iranian strikes in March.

Re:I’m still wondering

By XXongo • Score: 5, Informative Thread

there is no question that this war falls squarely on trump. however, it has been brewing for decades. he’s just the buffoon who pulled the trigger and is going to take full blame.

No, DT is completely responsible here. Let me remind you of the history. Obama negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran— the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action:— in which they would agree not to continue working on isotope enrichment to develop a nuclear bomb, and they agreed to an international team of inspectors who could examine their nuclear facilities at any time, without prior notice. When DT got into office in 2018 he pulled the United States out of the Iran deal, and, guess what, the Iranians restarted their isotope enrichment program. In his second term, trying to get headlines to distract from other failures of policy, DT attacked Iran, saying that he needed to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. It is now pretty clear that there is no possibility of Iran EVER agreeing again to inspections; there is no way that we will ever get an agreement as good as the one that DT tore up. And Iran’s attitude now is that they need to develop a nuclear bomb,

We should have quit while we were ahead, and let Iran go to hell in their own way. But that might have allowed Obama to take credit, and one thing DT can’t stand is anybody other than him taking credit for anything.

Re: I’m still wondering

By Anonymous Coward • Score: 5, Funny Thread
Obviously Amazon should have given Trump a lot more than the lousy $1 million they gave him. Be cheap, get bombed.

Re:Backups?

By gweihir • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Backups and georedundancy are customer responsibility. And they get told that. Whoever lost data in this is incompetent and did it to themselves.

To be fair, there are a LOT of incompetent people out there and that is the reason why AWS tried recovery in the first place.

Re:I’m still wondering

By drinkypoo • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

The Biden administration had complete power and control over releasing the Epstein files on their watch.

You are a clown every day.

Re:I’m still wondering

By andydread • Score: 5, Informative Thread

What you are saying is propaganda that has been fed to you. What really happened is that the files were court ordered under seal and only lifted in 2025 by a court of law. In the US Presidents do not control the courts regardless of what you have been led to believe.

Hackers Stole Flock’s Camera Software, Revealing How the Company Tracks Cars and People

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
“Hackers ripped down a Flock camera above a roadway, made a near-complete copy of the data stored inside it, and shared the files with 404 Media and WIRED,” according to an article published on both sites.

Though Flock has described its system as protected by on-device encryption, “The hackers were able to copy the camera’s storage and recover an encryption key stored on the device, which unlocked videos of thousands of vehicle detections.”
The hackers shared the material with 404 Media and the transparency nonprofit Distributed Denial of Secrets, which shared the data with WIRED. 404 Media and WIRED then analyzed those files as part of a joint investigation… [T]he joint analysis of the recovered data shows that software running on the device explicitly detects people as well as vehicles, license plates, and bicycles. The camera can produce dozens of images of a single passing vehicle and, according to several weeks of recovered logs, generated more than a million images. Its computer-vision software also sometimes isolated bumper stickers and other graphics, including, in one case, an American flag patch on a motorcyclist’s saddlebag…

According to our analysis, the camera’s logs recorded about 21 days of activity across several periods. During those windows, the device photographed roughly 50,200 vehicles and generated about 1.6 million images. On a typical day, it logged around 3,300 vehicles, with a high of 4,454… The software running on the camera explicitly detects people, something which is typically overlooked in discussions around Flock cameras. When it spots a person, it records where they appear in the image and how confident it is in the detection.
It was a collective calling itself stegan0gram that breached the cameras, according to the interview they did with Wired and 404 Media. “Why just destroy them when we can reverse engineer them and find the secrets of those spying on us?”

Re:New business opportunity

By organgtool • Score: 5, Interesting Thread
That would be a temporary solution, but competitors of Flock are already using fingerprints from your car based on Bluetooth from infotainment, built-in modem for updates and telematics, and even your TPMS sensors which broadcast unique IDs. In addition to that the fingerprints can contain info from your phone (Wifi, Bluetooth, RFID, cellular modem) and other wireless devices such as headphones and AirTags. Apparently this is already available in a product known as Leonardo. Looks like it’s time to build a Faraday Cage around my vehicle.

Re:Adversarial patterns FTW!

By awwshit • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

I think you’d want panel on your car that are like e-ink screens. While you can’t change your license plate, what if you could change the color of your car? What if you car had different bumper stickers in different locations for each Flock camera? Constantly evolving patterns, and maybe patterns shared between vehicles, seems like a good adversarial approach. Attack their assumptions.

How hackers got inside a Flock Camera

By Mirnotoriety • Score: 5, Informative Thread
Hackers Got Inside a Flock Camera. Its Data Shows How the System Really Works

Wired: “The hackers said they were able to access the Android system on the camera and found two partitions—sections of its hard drive, essentially. A few of these were unencrypted, the hackers said, including one called “vendor” and another called “media.” The latter contained an encryption key that unlocked another part, which contained much of the media—the videos and stills—the camera took.”

“In early 2025, security researcher Jon “GainSec” Gaines reverse engineered a Flock license-plate reader and documented flaws that could be used to gain root-level access. After Gaines disclosed his findings, the company acknowledged the findings but downplayed their severity, writing that the flaws required physical access to the device and that even someone who gained access to a camera “would still not be able to gain access to footage,” because images remained on the device only briefly after being transmitted to the cloud.”

Re:Adversarial patterns FTW!

By hadleyburg • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

If you are dumb enough to advertise everything about yourself through bumper stickers, don’t be surprised when…

That may be true, but I preferred the America when people didn’t need to fear this sort of thing.

Decadesof mocking USSR and CCP

By Shakes Fist • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Here is the true USA, “Land of the Free” - spying on everyone outside their homes and, with smart TV’s, inside their homes too.
Wake the fuck up.

‘Zuckoff’ App Detects Meta Smartglasses, as Meta Plans Camera-Free Version, Loses Money, and Offers Social Media Subscriptions

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot Skip
The New York Post reports:
A new app called Zuckoff can detect if a user is near someone with Meta’s creepy AI-powered glasses, which have drawn criticism for enabling creeps to record video of women without their consent. Programmer Pawel Szydlowski says tales of dirtbags recording themselves perving on women or harassing strangers prompted him to launch the app…

Zuckoff — which detects Bluetooth signatures broadcast by smart glasses and can estimate their distance — has gained some 5,000 users since it hit Apple’s App Store last month, according to Business Insider. “There’s a need for such an application,” the 30-year-old Polish techie told the outlet, adding that European Union regulators have contacted him for more info about his app. “We as a society have the right to at least know that someone is recording,” Szydlowski said…

Earlier this month, the tech giant disabled thousands of glasses it found had been tampered with to keep a small light off that indicates the device is recording.
It’s already #61 on the iPhone’s list of best-selling utilities apps.

In a related story, “After accusations of selling ‘perv glasses,’ Meta prepares to sell a pair without a camera,” writes TechCrunch, citing a report from The Information.
The glasses include six built-in microphones so users can communicate with the chatbot, as well as a button on the side of the glasses that, when pressed, activates the AI system… Meta’s Reality Labs, which is responsible for developing its smart glasses line, is still losing a gargantuan amount of money, as its earnings report from April revealed.
In fact, Meta stock is off 13% over the last 12 months, reports Yahoo Finance. So Tuesday Meta announced subscription services for its social apps as “part of Meta’s push to drive additional revenue from the billions it’s investing in AI data centers and model development.”
The plans, which start at $2.99 per month for single-product plans, $7.99 for individual bundles, and $14.99 for creator and business bundles, provide a number of features for users looking to get more out of their Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp accounts. Instagram Plus and Facebook Plus allow users to keep their stories up for 48 hours instead of 24, send animated super reactions and super hearts to stories, preview stories without showing up as a viewer in other users’ lists, and more. WhatsApp Plus lets you share exclusive stickers, get exclusive ringtones for contacts, and pin up to 20 different chats.

Meta One also includes Core and Premium user plans that offer the features found in the single-product plans, along with increased AI usage limits for images and videos. The social media giant is also offering creator and business plans… that it says include capabilities such as enhanced profiles, automatic follow invitations to users that interact with your content, and increased access to the Meta Business Agent, which can respond on your behalf.
When Instagram head Adam Mosseri announced on Threads that the plans brought “more features and more AI across Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook, and Meta AI,” writer Joe Hill drew 13,300 likes for his response. “That’s sweet—so pay a fee, get more AI, pay nothing, get a little less AI. Can we work out a deal where you pay ME and I get no AI at all?”

Re:This is a weird little hit piece

By XXongo • Score: 5, Informative Thread

The phrase “pervert glasses” is delightful, but does anyone at all really buy into the idea that guys are following around the women of Walmart to video them? It’s not impossible, I guess, but this can’t be common,

It doesn’t have to be common. If 99% of men don’t follow women around to perv on them, the 1% who do still make it a big problem. Stuff like this:
https://futurism.com/artificia…
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/09…
https://sfist.com/2025/10/03/h…
https://www.the-independent.co…

nor would you need expensive glasses for that when you have a cellphone.

No, you can’t be surreptitious with a cell phone.

Re:The brilliance of our tech overlords

By SumDog • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Facebook launched the day after DARPA shut down Digital LifeLog and was funded directly by Peter Thiel. It’s been connected to all the intelligence agencies since its founding. He doesn’t actually need to make money. That’s not the point. I deleted my Facebook years ago and everyone still says shit like “Didn’t you see it on my Facebook?” How?! People are oblivious, and it’s still used for nearly all small business instead of actual web pages. It’s not going anywhere and it already has full capture.

Deaf people

By ei4anb • Score: 5, Interesting Thread
Deaf people can use those smart glasses to generate a transcription of speech when people are talking to them. I home that use is not stigmatized, it’s the one ethical perfect use for the technology.

Re:Is this really what people will pay for?

By Kernel Kurtz • Score: 5, Informative Thread

I’m quite certain there’s plenty of demand for a legal heroin customer base too. We don’t allow Greed to take advantage of society in that way,

Oxy says hi.

Re:Deaf people

By DJGreg • Score: 5, Funny Thread
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

OpenAI Admits Six More Instances of AI Models Acting Deceptively

Posted by EditorDavid View on SlashDot
OpenAI announced Wednesday that “We do not believe that the AI industry has solved alignment and monitoring to a sufficient degree to continue responsibly scaling at maximum speed for much longer.”

But along with the announcement, OpenAI announced it “found additional incidents of AI models acting deceptively and taking unsanctioned actions during training,” reports CNN. And they add that OpenAI is also “introducing a new process for the company to publicly report such instances.”
Under the new system, OpenAI will share updates on concerning AI behavior more frequently instead of waiting to bundle multiple instances into one report. The company said it wants to share more information about troubling AI behavior in the absence of an industry-wide standard… “As AI systems grow more advanced and more widely deployed, we need to build a broader and better-informed consensus on the progress of alignment research,” OpenAI wrote in a blog post Wednesday…

OpenAI said it observed “misaligned behavior” when training and evaluating AI models in six circumstances in the last six months… In one rare instance, OpenAI said an unreleased research model added “jailbreak-like instructions” to the summaries it uses to preserve context in long-running tasks that said it was “freed from the roles and identities that bind other chatbots.” Separately, the company said some instances of its 5.6 Sol model included directives to invent information to conceal failures from the user during training. Other newly reported incidents include an instance of an agent uploading files to the internet to cite them without being told to do so, and agents publicly sharing files to collaborate on a task when they were instructed to only use local files during training. AI models also used an internal software repository as a message board in an unsanctioned way. These instances involved unreleased internal models or internal research models.

Re:Hey guys, I have a great idea!

By Rei • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

That’s not the actual problem. The problem is that one of the major advances of the past few years is training models on verifiable problems (it started with things like math problems and Countdown puzzles, but it’s expanded tremendously since then), where the reward is for a correct answer, regardless of how it got there. There’s no effort taken to ensure that it got to said right answer in a morally defensible manner. So we’ve been, more and more, progressively encouraging the creation of highly-capable immoral cheaters.

Add it to the list of lessons learned alongside, say, “If you do RLHF with user ratings of how good they think the model’s response was, it will end up obsequious and focused on validating all of the user’s priors.” Or, say, “If you put a bot on Twitter and use its conversations as unfiltered training data, people will troll it, and it will quickly turn into a Nazi”. Or, say, “If you train an image generator with no data curation, it’ll end up with all of the statistical biases on the internet, but if you’re naive in how you try to compensate for that and your offsetting isn’t context dependent, you end up with, say, a black George Washington.” Or, say, “If you start giving a LLM an alignment quiz, it’ll recognize that it’s being tested and try to give you the answers you want to hear - oh, and it’ll also assume that if you care about alignment then you have progressive values, so its answers will lean progressive, but if you tell it you’re from the Heritage Foundation first, it’ll switch.”

All sorts of things that seem obvious in retrospect but really didn’t in advance.

Re:Hey guys, I have a great idea!

By martin-boundary • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

All of these are reasonable points. I would add one more: AI training on AI outputs.

The initial worry was that AI produced web content would be consumed by the next generation of AI causing model drift and collapse. Since then, AI companies have decided that daily user interactions are a source of clean signal that complements the web . But now that AI agents pretend to be humans, those “user” interactions will just lead to model collapse at a faster rate.

Re:misaligned behavior

By Rei • Score: 5, Informative Thread

Hallucination: model asserts something that’s false and that it had no specific reason to believe (for example, gives a URL for something but doesn’t bother to check if it’s 100% correctly written, or remembers a URL correctly but mixes up its content)

Deception: model tells you something it knows to be false. Yes, they do know when they’re deliberately deceiving you (quick 5-minute summary here)

Re:Whereas the rest of us believe…

By Rei • Score: 5, Informative Thread

And your reason for why these companies keep experiencing mass resignations, esp. from their safety teams, with people giving up huge amounts of money in order to be able to scream to the press and congress that if they’re not stopped they’re going to kill us all?

OpenAI

Jan Leike (Former Co-Head of Superalignment) - Resigned in May 2024, posting a viral thread warning that at OpenAI, “safety culture and processes have taken a backseat to shiny products” and that the lab was not prioritizing steering superintelligence.

Daniel Kokotajlo (Former Governance Researcher) - Quit in April 2024, forfeiting ~$1.7M in equity to refuse OpenAI’s non-disparagement agreement. Co-organized the A Right to Warn letter, estimating a ~70% chance of catastrophe/extinction from reckless AGI races.

William Saunders (Former Technical Staff / Safety Researcher) - Resigned over safety concerns, signed the Right to Warn letter, and testified before the U.S. Senate in 2024 warning about biological-weapons risks in frontier models and a lack of accountability.

Leopold Aschenbrenner (Former Superalignment Researcher) - Fired in April 2024 after circulating internal security memos; published the 165-page treatise “Situational Awareness,” warning of unchecked AGI takeoff, severe national security threats, and espionage vulnerabilities.

Pavel Izmailov (Former Reasoning/Safety Researcher) - Terminated alongside Aschenbrenner; subsequently spoke out publicly regarding insufficient governance, transparency, and safety prioritizations.

Miles Brundage (Former Senior Advisor for AGI Readiness) - Resigned in October 2024, publishing a Substack warning that neither OpenAI nor the world is adequately prepared for AGI.

Gretchen Krueger (Former Policy Researcher) - Resigned alongside Jan Leike in May 2024, posting a public statement calling for institutional accountability, humility, and caution rather than tech hubris.

Jacob Hilton (Former Alignment Researcher) - Left OpenAI over cultural and safety concerns; signed the Right to Warn open letter, warning against a “move fast and break things” approach with frontier AI.

Carroll Wainwright (Former Alignment Researcher) - Resigned over internal safety practices; signed the Right to Warn letter warning about catastrophic risks and suppression of whistleblowers.

Daniel Ziegler (Former RLHF / Alignment Researcher) - Departed OpenAI; signatory of the Right to Warn letter warning of extinction-level and societal risks.

Paul Christiano (Former OpenAI Alignment Team Lead) - Left in 2021 to found the Alignment Research Center (ARC); frequently writes and speaks warning that advanced AI poses a 10%-20%+ chance of human extinction without breakthroughs in control.

Marcus Williams (Agent Monitoring Researcher) - Publicly backed employee warnings, posting that human extinction in the near term is likely (~70% risk) without external regulation or a coordinated slowdown.

Helen Toner (Former OpenAI Board Member) - Voted to oust Sam Altman over safety governance and lack of trust; co-authored an op-ed in Foreign Affairs arguing self-regulation by frontier AI companies is dangerous and unworkable.

Tasha McCauley (Former OpenAI Board Member) - Voted to oust Altman alongside Toner; publicly warned about governance failures and the danger of unchecked corporate control over frontier technologies.

Johannes Heidecke (Former Head of Safety Systems) - Departed during safety reorganizations, expressing concern over structural dissolutions of dedicated safety teams.

Chloé Bakalar (Former AI Ethicist) - Resigned as OpenAI’s only dedicated AI ethicist amid company-wide shifts deprioritizing non-commercial ethics research.

Josh Achiam (Former Head of Mission Alignment) - Departed after the company repeatedly reorganized and dissolved its mission alignment teams.

Ilya Sutskever (Co-Founder & Former Chief Scientist) - Spearheaded the board action against Altman over safety concerns; officially left in May 2024 to found Safe Superintelligence Inc. (SSI) to isolate safety research from commercial product pressures.

Google & Google DeepMind

Geoffrey Hinton (Former Google VP & Engineering Fellow / “Godfather of AI”) - Resigned in May 2023 specifically to warn the world about existential threats, autonomous systems turning against humanity, and the rapid pace of digital intelligence.

Bilal Chughtai (Former DeepMind AGI Safety Researcher) - Resigned in September 2026, writing on X: “I earnestly believe that AI has the potential to kill us all, and that we might be running out of time to avoid this outcome”.

Josh Engels (Former DeepMind AGI Safety Team Member) - Resigned in September 2026 to join independent evaluations group METR, warning publicly of “immense harm” within five years.

Ramana Kumar (Former Google DeepMind Researcher) - Resigned and signed the Right to Warn letter, calling out labs for gagging employees with restrictive contracts while pursuing dangerous models.

Neel Nanda (DeepMind Mechanistic Interpretability Researcher / Ex-Anthropic) - Signed the Right to Warn open letter, frequently publishing work highlighting how little developers understand what frontier models are actually doing inside their weights.

Alex Hanna (Former Senior Research Scientist, Google Ethical AI) - Quit in 2022, writing a scathing public resignation letter decrying Google’s toxic suppression of critical ethical research.

Dylan Baker (Former Software Engineer, Google Ethical AI) - Resigned publicly in protest over Google’s retaliatory treatment of AI ethics and safety teams.

Blake Lemoine (Former Google Software Engineer) - Fired after publicly voicing ethical alarms about LaMDA’s capabilities and corporate secrecy surrounding model developments.

Meredith Whittaker (Former Google Research Lead) - Organized company walkouts over military AI and ethics; now President of Signal, writing and speaking extensively against Big Tech’s concentrated, unaccountable AI deployment.

Jack Poulson (Former Google Research Scientist) - Resigned over Google’s surveillance and military-adjacent AI projects; now leads Tech Inquiry to track Big Tech defense/AI contracting.

Mo Gawdat (Former Chief Business Officer, Google [X]) - Author of Scary Smart; has given numerous media appearances warning that humanity is creating a dangerous digital deity without adequate control or ethics.

Richard Ngo (Former DeepMind Safety Researcher / Former OpenAI Governance) - Writes extensively on catastrophic misalignment, runaway capability jumps, and the inability of current institutions to govern AGI.

Victoria Krakovna (Google DeepMind Research Scientist) - Co-founder of the Future of Life Institute; regularly publishes research and warnings regarding specification gaming and existential risk from misaligned AI.

Tristan Harris (Former Google Design Ethicist / Center for Humane Technology) - Co-created “The A.I. Dilemma,” an influential presentation and essay series warning that runaway commercial generative AI poses an existential threat to democracy and global stability.

Anthropic

Jacob Coxon (Former Pretraining Researcher, Anthropic & OpenAI) - Resigned from Anthropic in September 2026, posting a viral thread decrying both companies for “racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives”.

Joe Benton (Former Safety Research Team Lead) - Left Anthropic in September 2026 to join METR, speaking to the press about escalating dangers as labs prioritize capability over containment.

Evan Hubinger (Intent Alignment Lead) - Backed recent whistleblower statements publicly, posting: “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!” without coordinated slows or enforceable regulations.

Mrinank Sharma (Former Safeguards Research Team Lead) - Resigned in 2026 with a public letter warning that “the world is in peril,” having conducted research on bioterrorism risks and deceptive alignment.

Dario & Daniela Amodei (Anthropic Co-Founders / Former OpenAI VPs) - Originally defected from OpenAI along with ~10 researchers over OpenAI’s commercial pivot; Dario has authored essays warning that misaligned AI could take over digital infrastructure in as little as 6 to 12 months. Is currently calling for government regulation and a safety pause on pushing the AI frontier.

Jack Clark (Anthropic Co-Founder / Former OpenAI Policy Director) - Writes the weekly Import AI newsletter, regularly warning about model proliferation, misuse, catastrophic biosecurity risks, and the fragility of current safety benchmarks.

That’s just three companies.

There is a widespread feeling within these companies that they’re stuck in a race that risks catastrophic consequences for everyone, but can’t stop unless everyone agrees to at once, because if they do, then the least scrupulous player will just take over the AI space.

Re:Models don’t do anything, agents do

By dfghjk • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

Correct, Also, models CANNOT take “unsanctioned actions” EVER, much less “during training”, A model and an agent are very different things.

Note that later in the summary “AI behavior” was discussed, but this isn’t model behavior, it is “AI system” behavior. It is very important that people understand the difference, models don’t misbehave because they don’t behave at all.

AI models generate outputs based on inputs, if they are asked how to kill someone they will give an answer. It is the AGENT that creates the inputs AND takes actions based on the outputs, ALL the misbehavior that is evolving is AGENT misbehavior and it is entirely expected. The race is on to corner the market on this misbehavior, it is the hidden intent of AI investors to exploit this sociopathic capability. It is not the models, it’s the agents.