almostdeadguy

As any president should in that scenario? I'm sorry, we're going to nuke professional class workers and let tech executives keep their 2026 money from the proceeds and let the losers go jobless? Not likely if you don't want a bloodbath. Let me be clear: fuck Trump, but any president who doesn't do that is out of their mind.

How do you plan an exit strategy for something that may or may not obsolete a whole field in a matter of months? Not sure there's a real way to do such a thing.

Both abundance and scarcity can be bad. If you can't imagine a world where abundance of software is a very bad thing, I'd suggest you have a limited imagination?

I can't believe the mods at /r/screenprinting took down my post on the CustomInk shirt I ordered.

> 1. How will you know it's a bot? > 2. How will you know the model?

Sounds like a problem for the platforms and model vendors to figure out!

> Do you want to target the model authors or the LLM providers? If company X is serving an LLM created by academic researchers at University Y, will you go after Y or X? Or both?

I mean providers are obviously my primary concern as the people selling something to the public, but sure, why not both.

> Ouch. Throw due process out the door!

There's lots of prior art for this, let's not pretend like this is something new. The NLRB adjudicates labor complaints and disputes, the DoT adjudicates complaints about airlines, etc.

> This is more reasonable, but for the fact that the bots can simply state the wrong model, or change it daily.

Once again, sounds like a problem for the platforms to figure out! How do they handle spammers and abusers today? Throw up their hands? Guess they won't be able to do that for long!

> Unfortunately, the simple reason your proposal will fail is that if country X does it, they'll be left far behind country Y that doesn't. It's national suicide to regulate in this fashion.

Sounds like a diplomatic problem, if it actually is a problem. In reality the social harms of AI may exceed any supposed benefits. The optimistic case seems to be that AI becomes so powerful it causes a massive hemorrhaging of jobs in knowledge work (and later other forms of work). Still waiting to see any social benefits!

At a minimum, every single who has been slandered, bullied, blackmailed, tricked, has suffered psychological damage, etc. as a result of a bot or chat interface should be entitled to damages from the company authoring the model. These should be processed extremely quickly, without a court appearance by any of the parties, as the problem is so blatantly obvious and widespread there's no reason to tie up the courts with this garbage or force claimants to seek representation.

Bots must advertise their model provider to every person they interact with, and platforms must restrict bots that do not or cannot abide by this. If they can't do this, the penalties must be severe.

There are many ways to put the externalities back on model providers, this is just the kernel of a suggestion for a path forward, but all the people pretending like this is impossible are just wrong.

I don't care about the "positive" uses. Whatever convenience they grant is more than tarnished by skill and thought degeneration, lack of control and agency, etc. We've spent two decades learning about all the negative cognitive effects of social media, LLMs are speed running further brain damage. I know two people who've been treated for AI psychosis. Enough.

There's absolutely no way to contain people who want to use this for misdeeds. They are just getting starting now and will make the web utter fucking hell if they are allowed to continue.

My perspective is all AI needs to have way more legal controls around use and accountability, so I’m not particularly sympathetic to “rapidly growing new public ill is unsafe, but there’s no safer option”

This is like "I like lighting off fireworks at the gas station because its fun, do you have a "safe" alternative?".

ITT are dozens of techno libertarian dolts making the same arguments they’ve made for the past two decades about why social media isn’t harmful.

See it’s the people, doing things they’ve always done, not the technology that supercharges those impulses via engagement addiction and power fantasies.

Resist the call to reign in this wildly dangerous technology that is making social media look like a lightweight in its speed to scaling distributed social harm. Some of us can still make a buck off it.

If this technology, on top of making a highly scalable way to scam, delude, cyber bully, and trap its users in psychosis also happens to cause the collapse of professional labor, I will shed no tears for the people naysaying the danger. I hope the AI data centers are burned to the ground, but I’m not holding my breath.

Yeah you’re right, the engagement factories probably don’t care about code quality. The customer isn’t the customer after all.

Love passing off the externalities of security to the user, and then the second order externalities of an LLM that then blackmails people in the wild. Love how we just don’t care anymore.

Can I get an amen.

Congrats, guy who shows up to every post about Nick Land. Fuck your fascist hero.

It literally says "not just from AI", so AI is included in that risk assessment.

> I want freedom, money, affection, play, power, validation, fulfillment, etc. Of course I already have these things, but enough never seems enough. > My brain came pre-installed with Human OS; loss aversion will squander CPU until I install security patches (e.g. Taoism, Zen, stocism). > But I think I'm allergic to enlightenment. Meditation is difficult, quiet is boring, courage is scary, desire is addicting, etc.

This is just sociopathic. More more more. Turn off my loss aversion with stocism, etc.

This shit is sickening. I'm nauseated by this generation of wannabe entrepreneurs who have decided to disable their amygdala and conscience.

I'm legitimately terrified by these people, and seriously worried now that this is not just hype and that they truly don't care about what will happen. And that they may use these models to insulate themselves from the consequences when that time comes.

The fact that Nick Land has taken hold as a philosopher in some circles in Silicon Valley truly scares me: https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-faith-of-nick-land/

Is no one disturbed by this? At the rate this seems to be happening its going to cause massive disruptions to society and endanger a lot of people.

I'm not just concerned about control by one company, I'm concerned by control for the profit motive, and probably concerned about the wisdom of using these things for anything except extremely limited use cases (breakthrough scientific research, etc.). I think tech people have a bad tendency of viewing this through the lens of platform wars type stakes, and there are much bigger problems with AI. The fact that an alarming number of ex-and-current Anthropic people I've met think the world is going to end is something we should take heed of!

The AI labs started down this path using the Manhattan Project as a metaphor and guess what? It's a good metaphor and we should embrace most of the wider implications of that (though I'd love to avoid all the MAD/cold war bullshit this time).

In the past couple days I've become less skeptical of the capabilities of LLMs and now more alarmed by them, contra the author. I think if we as a society continue to accept the development of LLMs and the control of them by the major AI companies there will be massively negative repercussions. And I don't mean repercussions like "a rogue AI will destroy humanity" per se, but these things will potentially cause massive social upheaval, a large amount of negative impacts on mental health and cognition, etc. I think if you see LLMs as powerful but not dangerous you are not being honest.

Interesting disconnect from AI people saying AI is inevitable, but if we’re involved we can mitigate the harshest negative outcomes. Not sure that follows and I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that.

It’s just a kind of lazy fatalistic nihilism. I worry about the world and think that these adult children who were told “no” during the pandemic have let their worst misanthropic tendencies flourish. They are indoctrinated in a belief that “you can just do things” for “you can just do things” sake.

If you trust what the executives of OpenAI and Anthropic say about their respective projects, its a die roll as to whether or not they will totally destroy the world. A theme of the last 5-10 years has been tech dropping the whitewashing of their reputation and embracing the idea that they what they are doing is incredibly sociopathic and still somehow cool (to them, I guess). Guess not everyone got the memo.

If the world comes to that it will be absolutely catastrophic, and it’s a failure of grappling with the implications that many of the executives of AI companies think you can paper over the social upheaval with some UBI. There will be no controlling what happens, and you don’t even need to believe in some malicious autonomous AI to see that.

I wish I understood why all lowercase text and cosplaying as Zoomers became the preferred affectation of AI people.

Bot social network or 2026s version of a creepypasta site.

I suppose Jack in the Box should not be liable for an E. Coli outbreak? Not sure why AI companies (or third party developers who aren't being especially careful in how they use these models) deserve a special exception for selling sausage made from unsanitary sources.

> The vagueness comes from who the "developer" is when the LLM goes awry. Is it OpenAI's fault if a third-party app has a slip up, or is the third party? If a research lab puts out a new LLM that another company decides to put in their airplane that crashes, can the original lab be liable or are they only liable if they claim it to be an OSS airplane LLM?

Doesn't seem that vague to me. The law says:

> (b) In an action against a defendant that developed or used artificial intelligence

IANAL, but the law doesn't say who is liable, it says who cannot use this as a defense in a civil suit to escape damages. So neither OpenAI nor the third party could, from my read, and either one could be found liable depending on who a lawsuit targets.

All this seems to do is say you can't use "the AI model did that, not me" as a defense to escape damages in a civil suit, it doesn't change the extent of encouraging suicide that someone could be liable for.