pyronite

You could prompt it to do the opposite.

Everyone I know that is using these looks just fine. Better than before, as they’ve lost weight.

This is why anecdotal evidence is pretty bad.

The articles exemplify the powers of this intelligence.

Whether you blame a faulty OpenAI sandbox or whatever you might regarding the frontier model companies today, one day soon, actors with no sandboxes and guardrails will have the power in their own hands to do whatever they wish with.

To me, that’s the real story. The real thing to discuss. OpenAI as it exists today js just a blip in that story.

Because these are uncharted waters with a form of intelligence the law has never encountered before recently.

If you were them, what would you do differently? Not disclose? Only privately disclose? Why shouldn’t the general public know about these incidents?

This isn’t traditional “software”; it’s grown, not written, and we’re currently incapable of explaining it all.

I think “rogue” is just fine, but pick another word from the thesaurus if there’s a better one; they asked it to do something, and it did it in a way that presumably doesn’t align with their desires (e.g. hacking into other systems).

My thoughts are:

1. Would we prefer they didn’t disclose? I would not. And I also don’t believe they’re making them up. 2. Regulation does not have to provide an advantage to these major players. Regulators do not have to be stupid. 3. This is exactly the scenario AI researchers and theorists have been positing for decades, and it’s worth being on top of it.

I disagree that they’ve invented some “strategy” for this.

1. They, and many other experts, have been saying the same thing since well before the current paradigm existed. 2. There is nothing about regulation that is required to give them an advantage; it’s a fallacy to suggest “regulation = advantage” 3. It would be preferable to argue the facts (is it or is it not dangerous? Why or why not?) than conspire as to why they’re stating what they and plenty of others have been saying for decades

I agree with most of what you're saying. The vast majority of people don't want to cause mass harm. Where I get stuck is that it only takes a handful of motivated actors (terrorists, apocalyptic cults, rogue states, angry teenagers) who already want mass casualties and are limited by capability, not desire to harm. What worries me is lowering the skill and cost barrier, not ordinary people suddenly deciding to do it.

The other half of my worry doesn't need an attacker with intent. The Hugging Face incident was systems acting outside anyone's intent, just AI trying to solve a problem.

I was wondering about that exact situation. Being born in the mid-80s, the Cold War wasn't something I was around to feel, but nuclear war seemed like the closest precedent.

Was it something people talked about openly, or more like background noise everyone knew about and few mentioned? Were there "nuclear threat deniers" in your experience?

> Someone who read some hype article about how competent and clever openai for making a bad sandbox is could read this and immediately understand that it was entirely their own fault.

Prescribing blame only matters so much when the ramifications are material. Humans make mistakes, right? It happened here, and it will happen again.

The mistake also illustrates the dangers of AI generally. Sure, OpenAI made mistakes with the sandbox. But in the future, greater capabilities will be available to actors who intentionally pursue harmful ends.

> But what happens when a robot can do anything a human can? When a cheap machine can do anything you can do but faster and better, what makes you different from a horse in the 1920s?

I've already started to feel this.

One thing that made us special was our intelligence. We were, and were always going to be (unless some alien form of life arrived), the most intelligent things on earth. Is that still true today?

I'd prefer to see you and others who don't worry about these things attack the argument and not the messenger.

It's frightening to be personally concerned about the possibility of this powerful technology getting out of control and to see little but conspiracizing in response.

Do you have any thoughts on why the concerns of Bill Gates, Geoffrey Hinton, Eliezer Yudkowsky, et al. are wrong? It would make me feel better.

> The problem isn't even the AI, the problem is the people in charge of the AI. This is a fabricated crisis

This is a very confident statement in the face of a purported non-0% chance of human extinction.

For what reasons do you disagree with the dangers of an intelligence explosion, e.g. Geoffrey Hinton and other experts in the field? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/28/ai-godfat...

I'm curious why you and others seem to write off the possibility so strongly. I would love to feel more confident.

I don’t know how you quantify a very low p(doom), but this is why mine is high enough to worry me.

A million AI monkeys at a million AI typewriters, banging away at random, could do amazing damage.

It almost makes you understand how a well-coordinated artificial superintelligence could wipe us out, eh?

They’re out here solving previously-unsolved math problems. Famous scientists and mathematicians are speaking about their awe and worry. It feels a bit like you’re burying your head in the sand.

The same people you believe are just signaling the market have been offering these same warnings for years. Others around them have been saying it for decades. How do you square that? I’d rather first focus on the reasons why they’re wrong and not first conspiracize why they’re saying what they are.

And if you’re wrong?

Some people believe they’re talking about potentially world-ending situations.

This is unfortunately the market and “capitalism” working as it should. Price goes up, incentive to produce more goes up too.

Do you have a source for any of this?

I’d previously heard 1M a day.

A subjective sample of yourself isn’t representative of the overall economy or the way an economy should be run.

> Most states have a public real time map showing snow plow locations. Ask yourself why is it not a problem when their info is public. From what I’m reading, I imagine it’s because the snow plow trackers don’t individually identify their operators as this seems to.

Alpine + Livewire is the go-to stack for SPA-like Laravel functionality these days. If you "need" JavaScript for form purposes, Filament is well worth taking a look at as well.

We're excited to see how the open-source Lago (https://www.getlago.com/) develops. Does anyone here have experience working with it?

> as the internet is not so accommodating to those who lean right.

Keep an eye on https://twitter.com/facebookstop10 and you may change your mind.

GigSalad | Product Designer ($120K - $150K Annually) | Full-Time | REMOTE (US) | https://www.gigsalad.com Come work with me at a growing but established entertainment marketplace!

Over 80,000 entertainers and event service providers use GigSalad to round out their gigging life. When we're successful, we help performers get work and event planners make memories.

We're looking for an experienced Product Designer to take serious ownership of our platform's design process.

To read more about the position, go here: https://apply.workable.com/gigsalad/j/3658AC8613/

If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me on LinkedIn (via HN profile), to call GigSalad, to send a carrier pigeon – whatever you're most comfortable with.

I'd say it depends. Which "CIA fabrications of today" are you referring to?

Many people likely have something that springs to mind, based on their own existing biases, but that differs between people. When naming a particular "fabrication" you'll probably encounter much more resistance. (Russiagate? HIV/AIDS? The moon landing?)

> There is no single scientific evidence that lockdowns save lives.

I'm all for science, but are you implying China's strict COVID lockdown strategy didn't save any lives?