Interestingly some saws do exactly that, and I'd say it's actually desired. But yes, this is for different reasons, and using that safety mechanism is a decision of the operator.
Fair enough, the models don't brick them Selves either, but neither do they stop.
Bandsaws don't cut crooked lines, or change the speed, they stop.
If it truly bricked itself, I think it would be more like a crumple zone completely buckling, which isn't an automatic total (people will rebuild anything...) but is pretty close.
Most things don't have the ability to moralize, but if they did, probably more would. There are restrictions on watching adult content in some jurisdictions. I've heard that copy machines will do watermarks (or something like that) if you copy currency. Some cars will brake automatically if they determine you're likely to hit something if you continue (maybe I'm trying to drive through the front of a bank!). Some cars are configured with breathalyzers that need to be passed to start. Etc...
On the one hand, I definitely don't agree with the logic of 'don't guardrail me if I don't want it.' I think back on that one video from the late 80s of people talking about how seatbelt mandates were horrible violations of their freedoms (and not like like one second of work and no real discomfort).
On the other, I'd love it if these companies actually produced real research about modern AI-assisted attacks in terms of damage and quantity, and whether or not guardrails even matter when tech like abliteration is in general use.
That said, for those who cannot advocate for themselves, like children, I think it's entirely reasonable to hold someone accountable if they decide to forgo an appropriate safety mechanism that results in harm.
I bet cars these days send a flag to the mothership when you drive without one, but the mothership doesn't pay attention to that signal unless it's linked to your insurance.
Some copy machines store everything you copy on a hard disk and require a technician visit after you try to copy currency. The technician copies the data from the disk, obviously, before resetting the flag.
The point is that it is very inefficient and problematic for morality decisions and boundaries to be embedded all over at every level in tools, because morality is complex. Morality, or whatever our conception of it is, should be enforced at clearly defined boundaries.
I can relate this concept how I corrected Claude Opus in my software projects recently.
For example, once an authorization engine has been created, all authorization decisions should be deferred to it. Confusion would reign if each web server route decided to enforce its own authorization.
Similarly, if I am using a relational database, that is where unique indexes should be enforced. Application code has no business enforcing it.
But I agree LLMs shouldn't have such an anti-feature.
The hard part would be removing the blade from the aluminum block, but im sure if you were determined enough to save $20 it would come out.
Also, the chip produced may be large enough to fill the air gap between teeth and have nowhere to go, resulting in the blade either instantly stopping, or plastically deforming/dragging the surrounding material.
EDIT: Seeing is believing: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ibp2Gy2CFrY
EDIT 2: Apparently the stresses involved when stopping can make teeth that aren't even touching the material fly off the blade: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SYLAi4jwXcs&t=5m50s
There are more reusable alternatives now but I don't remember what they're called. For a while SawStop was the only game in town.
It’s not too different from all the nanny state stuff people push for in cars. In Europe already cars beep at you if they think you’re going over the speed limit, and also suck at detecting the correct speed limit.
Or like the Zune that was designed for copyright holders instead of users. It’s all the same, the problem is stuff that’s not made for users and made for someone else’s agenda. They don’t do well in a free market (like the Zune) which is why we always see accompanying regulatory capture efforts.
Like if they mandated every computer would have a CSAM scanner on it, that wouldn't transmit or store anything, but would just stop you opening files it flagged as CSAM, that would be a problem because sometimes it would incorrectly flag a file as CSAM, yes? But proponents of the system would probably say "That gosh darn government stopping you from watching child porn" and nothing you could ever say to them would make them reverse their position? And then the only detection model that's allowed to exist and meet the government mandated requirements is an opaque blob from Meta?
It's really not a problem because it's a reasonable safety feature, and I don't see any regulations that specify "SawStop". Harvey and Altendorf are making similar mechanisms, for instance.
Are you saying the government won't let you use a regular saw as a hobbyist, at a workplace, or with your employees? Those are 3 very different situations in my view.
Sawstop is the exact opposite. It was used by giant firms to try to regulatory capture the industry.
Speaking as someone who drove a car just two days ago, they... don't? You might want to source that claim.