I got the feeling that what they had in their essentially culling the energy consumers with low economic output.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/bootstrapping-frontier-...
Also the LLM that nearly started a war with China recently.
That is why the bar is set where it is. The corporate circle jerk designed this as a cost of doing business, not as a check on responsibility or restitution for real damages to people and society.
This is all theater, The whole Trump clan is invested in the AI bubble.
Why should a small business suffer because it wasnt worth a billion dollars?
if you has debt of 1 million, you has problem
but if you have debt of 1 billion, its bank problem
I didn't read it that way. This is a bill that would ban open-weight models (good ones); effectively mandating gated-access, locked-down, high-refusal rate services, like what Anthropic provides.
Free software is incompatible with the requirement that it be impossible to abuse it.
Companies are responsible for their agents; you don't blame the car for running over the person.
The bulk of AI users can pay $20/month for it, but not 10k+ up front. I agree frontier models will someday be dethroned, but today is not that day, and what the frontier companies do between now and then, legally and otherwise, still matters a great deal.
Piracy was similar, but it's trajectory was far more preditermined and unavoidable.
What is the average damage caused by OpenAI/Anthropic hacks? I feel like we should aim at lowering that number, not increasing it.
What's the rule for fully autonomous cars?
Should we allow this as unsupervised at all if we are really afraid of deaths, while there are practically no states that allow 100% autonomous cars (where we are actually afraid of deaths)?
If "an independent third party registered with the Department of Commerce would periodically evaluate the lab", will this turn into an expensive certification/insurance that cuts off smaller competition (totally by mistake, I'm sure)?
I am also very very sure this is most definitely not at all going to become like product certification if EU, where there are literally 2 companies certifying various standards: they police each other and a stupid electric fan can cost you tens of thousands of euros to certify.
/s
1. Prosecute and lock people up over known instances of AI-enabled hacking, so companies playing fast and loose know “oops my AI did it” isn’t a useful defense.
2. If you’re actually worried about AI killing lots of people, you immediately stop training AI specifically at the art of killing people, like selecting bombing targets, flying fighter jets, etc.
Of course we all know none of these will happen.
serioussecurity•49m ago
kfichter•45m ago
LoganDark•38m ago
This almost makes sense. You almost can't risk vulnerabilities even being discovered in certain systems that are impossible to patch, like immutable distributed smart contracts.
Not sure that justifies withholding Mythos access entirely, but what do I know. I apparently got access to Mythos a few days ago since Anthropic folded Project Glasswing into the CVP.
tancop•27m ago
And if a problem is critical enough the community can decide to hard fork and rewrite the contracts source code even if it's immutable. It already happened with the Ethereum DAO hack and most people were okay with it.
LoganDark•23m ago