Because they're the exception, not the norm. These systems generally do what they're supposed to do, at least if implemented correctly. The key isn't efficacy; you need to be emotionally prepared to oppose privacy violations even if they're doing exactly what they advertise.
I mean that would be the beginning sure, but the way the article sounds after he had understood that she wasn't up to anything and she was asking about the whole thing he went ahead and gave her a guided tour, which normally I would expect them just to "have a nice day, ma'am, if we have any further concerns we will be in touch"
What I meant: they can write it pretty well. Probably because share of good quality code of native apps is much higher bad quality, due to all js slop we had even before LLM slop.
Definitely would concede this, but I haven't had any issues so far. It's been able to make things look exactly as I've dictated them, even with relatively complex visualization of git branching. I get the sense that, with how capable Opus 5.5 is, "less capable" no longer means "not capable enough".
> a haven for American pedophiles/criminals who end up fleeing the country
Only Jewish pedophiles & criminals.
Israel will not let in random non-Jewish criminals to flee prosecution, only those who are provably Jewish are granted citizenship and non-extradition.
This is where the wall broke down for me. Criticizing Israel is okay, but criticizing Jews is not. However this is one example of being "above the law" which affects all jews, not only israeli citizens.
There are many ways in which Israel differs. For one it's a 78 year old colony that excludes the indigenous Palestinian population from returning to their ethnically cleansed homes. They also allow people to convert to Judiasm and enter, so it actually has nothing to do with their ethnicity and is solely based on religion.
>The Law of Return offers citizenship to Jews wishing to immigrate, as well as non-Jews with at least one Jewish grandparent (see "Who is a Jew under the Law of Return?"), as well as their spouses
I agree it's racist, but they also allow converts:
> Converts to Judaism who wish to immigrate to Israel are evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the Israeli Interior Ministry, which determines whether the conversion was sincere in its view
The reasoning behind the 1970 amendment is usually traced to the Nuremberg Laws. Nazi Germany defined a Jew for the purposes of persecution as anyone with a Jewish grandparent. The amendment drew Israel’s circle of protection at the same radius: if having one Jewish grandparent was enough to be persecuted, it should be enough to be given refuge.
I wasn't making an argument for or against the legitimacy of Israel; I was arguing that self defense explains Israel's immigration laws better than a sense of racial superiority.
It's one thing to accuse Israelis of paranoia, hypocrisy, or even genocide, and it's another to deny that the primary motivation to have Israel be a jewish ethno-state was to have a refuge from persecution.
It isn't clear if the accusation is that I knowingly am telling lies, or that I am gullible and repeating lies. Either way, we could go back and forth all weekend and probably still not agree on much. Cheers.
They are certainly not engaging in genocide. The population of Palestinians has increased by 5% over the past 3 years. Even the population of Gazans has not decreased.
> For one it's a 78 year old colony that excludes the indigenous Palestinian population from returning to their ethnically cleansed homes.
The ethnic cleansing that happened when Israel gained independence was not in just one direction, Israel also did allow plenty of Arab/Palestinians to stay and gave them citizenship where feasible. It's not surprising however that Israel doesn't currently offer citizenship to a population that largely doesn't think Israel should even exist. States don't normally give citizenship to their non-citizen enemies.
> They also allow people to convert to Judiasm and enter, so it actually has nothing to do with their ethnicity and is solely based on religion.
It's not solely based on religion. It's also quite rare for people to convert to Judaism in general so that exception has little practical implications.
Any anthropic observation requires merely a satisficing condition, which generally means that most requisite conditions are not optimal, including consciousness :)
I like this phrasing and am curious what new word or phrase we might use to describe big companies over pushing Ai internally at the expense of their product quality. This pattern is so ubiquitous across google cloud products I have taken to calling them the 21st century IBM, having been a IBM baby and witnessing first hand their fall from exceptionalism.
The internet and gaming has ruined my brain because scuffed was a way to describe a bad dungeon run in mythic plus dungeons in WoW, or a bad tower dive in LoL a few years ago. I see scuffed and think "here's a WoW/League knower".
HP is the other company to consider as analogous. And maybe more explicitly so, as they had a similar "engineering first" internal culture that degraded markedly over time to be a shadow of their former self.
And took similar companies that were quality engineering focused -- like DEC or Palm -- down with them through acquisition.
Something being potentially extremely dangerous isn't super notable. We sell cars to everyone, and that's ~ a device for accelerating a ton or more of metal to potentially eye watering speeds. Propane tanks are already approximately a crappy bomb.
I've not seen anything so far that's remarkably more dangerous than a laundry list of commonly purchased items. Most of what I hear is either some sort of far fetched "the teenagers are going to be bio-engineering designer strains of polio", or some vague fears that the AI will become sentient and kill us all that vaguely reminds me of when the Manhattan Project thought they might cause earth's entire atmosphere to enter runaway fission.
I'm also distrustful because virtually all the experts stand to benefit from convincing us unregulated AI is dangerous. Namely, it's a compelling reason to ban Chinese and open weight models that are eating into their margins. It doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does mean that they'll need to substantiate their claims. I'm not trusting them at face value.
Eh, sort of. There are a ton of loopholes and practically no enforcement, but there are theoretically regulations.
I could go buy a car in cash today with 0 paperwork. It only has to be titled and registered if I drive it on public roads. Even that’s like 90% a technicality. I drove a couple thousand miles on tags that were 6 years out of date (didn’t drive it but moved and had to move it).
Most states also let you drive on dealer plates for 30 days or so. Steve Jobs notoriously got a new car every month so he never had to have real plates.
If the presumed goal is “acquire a car and do bad things with it immediately”, then no, there’s no regulation preventing that. You can buy a car off Craigslist and play bumper cars on the highway 5 minutes later without ever talking to the government or proving anything.
Basically the entirety of car regulation is to protect normal folk from normal problems, not preventing the insane from doing insane things.
I don't understand how you can look at where AI is at right now and conclude that we don't need to worry about far fetched scenarios. Do you not think that someone a few years ago would have called current AI capabilities far fetched?
No? It was the expected track record. We were already seeing massive growth from 2020 to 2022 to 2024, so the current state in 2026 is at least about what I expected in terms of code gen and voice synthesis, although the more recent applications of it in pixel art has been rather exciting because it used to suck hard in that department.
As for regulation, what would you even regulate? How would you regulate it? If you don’t have clear ideas for what you want, then wanting something currently unnecessary like regulation is only asking for trouble.
On the flip side, I don’t understand why you think AI is special. I do hear you, but that’s not special to AI and it sounds to me like a social panic.
Look at microplastics. They’re in the entire food chain; their “far fetched scenario” is we accidentally sterilize every chordate on the planet, and we die because there’s no food.
Or global warming. The entire planet drowns, dehydrates, overheats or freezes.
Or COVID vaccines, this is more or less the same tautology as people that refused vaccines. They didn’t do enough to detect and prevent far fetched scenarios, people didn’t want to take the vaccine.
I’m not saying some regulation wouldn’t be good (though I suspect the aspects we want to regulate differ). I’m just saying it falls into a broad category of “stuff we should deal with, but aren’t” and it’s not even really at the top of the list. We have some things already in motion we need to deal with that overrule things that we aren’t even sure will ever happen. It’s a hypothetical existential risk in a world with extant risks we are ignoring.
Powerful AI is much newer than microplastics, global warming, vaccines, or respiratory diseases, so I have much less confidence we understand its trajectory. (COVID specifically is also new, but it's similar enough to other respiratory diseases that it seems reasonable to generalize from them; I'm not convinced AI is similar to e.g. electricity or trains in the same way.)
It’s sort of notable, but not really, no. The list of things that might kill all humans is pretty long, and most of them have a currently extant, non-theoretical path to kill us all.
Nukes could kill us all, unhinged people have access to them. Global warming appears inevitable, and we’re trending towards “world ending”. I don’t recall how many dinosaur killer asteroids have a path whose margin of error includes hitting Earth. We’re about due for a “fry all the electronics on earth” solar flare by probability. Microplastics seem okay-ish so far, but they’re in the whole food chain. If they somehow end up causing sterility at certain concentrations, we might kill our whole food chain.
No, it’s not that notable that some technology could theoretically, one day, in ways we don’t currently understand, kill us all. That’s been basically a constant since rhetoric Industrial Revolution and our ability to blanket the earth in a particular thing.
Pretty much anything can kill humans if you use enough of it, including water and oxygen. If you want to make a coherent argument for regulating AI then be more specific instead of just raising vague concerns over "potential".
No. First of all, the expert consensus you're alluding to is a much narrower slice than you're making it sound. Secondly, it also isn't neutral rederivation, either. What you're mostly looking at is one opinion which is being passed around, based on a mix of hypotheticals and folklore.
This is a strawman attack, aside from simply being an inaccurate claim. The notion that AI poses no danger and all claims to the contrary are IPO manipulations requires extensive conspiratorial thinking.
You.. want to align an entity that by definition is more intelligent than an average human by a margin that is already difficult to comprehend. There is nothing solve here -- the question that you should ask is how that super intelligence will see a human race. That is it.
Still waiting for Boeing to catch up to this marketing renaissance. They are probably salivating at their projected valuation when they start saying things like “our planes could crash intentionally to kill everyone on board” or “our bombers might decide to blow up your cities instead of your enemy’s!”
Imagine the fortune food supply companies will make! “Our lettuce just might poison your child!”
Truly a golden age is near, and you, perceptive geniuses that you all are, will be the only ones not fooled, not for a second, because it all makes sense, always and forever, as long as you squint hard enough to close your eyes.
The “experts” paid by OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google? The ones with a vested interest in making it impossible for anyone else to create AI? Oh yes, tell me more about these “experts” are saying we’re gonna get AGI any day now like they have for the last five years, and that they alone—the ever beneficial corporate overlords—will kneecap the rest of human innovation to protect us from companies that aren’t them.
Will he be fleeing as is custom?
reply