Enough. Let's take them at their word: it's time to sue them, jail them, stop them from killing us all like they insist they are trying to do.
"Defendants admit that they provide a service without fully knowing how it works. This is not just any service. It is one that Defendants themselves concede poses an existential risk to the continued survival of humankind. Defendants claim they cannot stop barreling forward with their potentially civilization-ending endeavors unless they are forced to do so by the government. They have asked the government to tie them to the mast. Plaintiff brings good news to the Defendants: The Florida Attorney General is answering your cry for help with a motion to enjoin you from harming Floridians with your reckless, unacceptably risky product."[1]
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/oct/03/openai-sa...
[1] https://www.myfloridalegal.com/sites/default/files/plaintiff...
Read strictly, author is claiming that only ML4Good or equivalent has the knowledge to dictate what models we should be using. I categorically disagree. Or rather, "they're not even wrong", since "AI safety" is not even remotely encapsulated in this piece.
At the risk of ad hominem, this is an Accenture consultant expanding the definitions for their own ends. Maybe they'll define what "good" is. Someday.
We've seen this wave before with big A Agile consultants, Microsoft certification hucksters, and different hucksters from before my time.
It's a verbose (probably AI written?) piece. I gave it the charitable good-faith read. But in the end, I couldn't shake the feeling that even amongst the welcome humanizing of the concepts, this is the same kind of amorphous know-better-than-you self-promotion, opportunistically hitching their own trailer of grift to the buzzword of the day.
This stuff? A spanish speaking critic of AI safety says, "Hey guys, it's really not so dangerous." What did you mean by "this stuff" precisely? Is it like "you people" perhaps?
kingcauchy•34m ago