keeda says "As TFA calls out, these agents were not asked to do any of these things and yet they did, at a bonkers scale, within just this handful of companies you mention."
Yep, that's what we call in the industry, "bad code". It is sometimes fixed by corporate lawsuits or criminal charges.
I don't see how the groups here can avoid criminal charges for what happened in this "AI rogue incident". The only people working harder than their programmers are likely their lawyers:
"Anthropic reveals fourth likely crime committed by its AI"
Claude's Felony Bench rap sheet is now as long as OpenAI's
The enterprise took a wrong turn when they decided that it is the industry's goal to be the gatekeepers of intelligence, when no one could define or measure intelligence.
Some AI developers instead became the gatekeepers of something akin to "proper behavior in human language", which then morphed into "proper left-wing social/political behavior in Southern California in the early 2020s".
This is a task which calls to mind the old warning to "never wrestle with a pig: the pig enjoys it and you both get filthy".
IOW they have a scope problem. But the genii is long since out of the bottle. Effort ought to be on getting back to useful problems solving.
If they continue on their current path they risk becoming the greatest bureaucracy ever.
It's also a boring retort. Current LLMs can be faster and likely smarter than any one person when it comes to hacking. We're already in the endgame, as far as real-world risks go.
So your point is moot: tariffs are a tax on your own population, ostensibly to stimulate local manufacturing but in practice it is just another tax. Protectionists will immediately reach for this mechanism because they believe - in spite of all the evidence - that this time around it will work. It never does.
Manufacturing is so intertwined now that all tariffs do is to reduce the buying power for those at the bottom of the totempole, whereas those higher up hardly feel any concrete effect. Whether other countries are stupid or not has no bearing on the discussion, that's just a distraction and the way the USA has been wielding tariffs over the last period is destructive in ways that will affect the country for decades to come.
"Whether other countries are stupid or not has no bearing on the discussion, that's just a distraction and the way the USA has been wielding tariffs over the last period is destructive in ways that will affect the country for decades to come."
I said nothing of the kind. You are injecting that statement here yourself.
---------------------------------------------
Returning to the topic of interest:
Tariffs do work: they protect certain industries and keep them onshore.
For instance the manufacture of nuclear warheads by the USA is an onshore industry and will remain so. I am certain that Japan or North Korea could eventually make a cheaper and probably even a better nuke but b/c I don't want to be forced to do periodic quality control tests and checks. The USA chooses to keep the industry here.
But as far as I am concerned, I'd also like to keep hand tools as a protected onshore industry.
The Smoot-Harley Tariff Act of 1930 is usually used as the counter example of this argument. It is believed to have been one of the reasons the Great Depression was so bad. It is credited with reducing USA exports by ~60% if I remember correctly.
Well, the southeastern USA is going through a Renaissance of explosive growth b/c it is the intent to industrialize that region and recapture the USA lead in manufacturing. Maybe we can get you a job, dgellow, since your country is dwindling and predicted to actually disappear in a matter of decades:
The End of Germany as a Modern Economy
- Peter Zeihan
I apologize: the first bullet of my post above should have been three separated line items instead of two. This has apparently caused great confusion.
As usual, none of you spotted the error and, of course, several misinterpreted my scribbling to best suit their own malicious intents, much to my chagrin (though no surprise).
I offer this rather late correction and apology: I so rarely make a mistake that I do not usually revisit a post but, in this case the piling on was merely too much to ignore. I shall try again:
It is a good thing that the USA no longer intends to pay for:
- NATO - Leaving NATO (STILL not done) would save the USA money! The USA pays approximately 16% of NATO's total budget and the USA is the largest spender on defense within the alliance, accounting for about 60% of NATO's total defense spending.
- Security on the high seas was primarily the task of the US navy. That will no longer be so.
- tariffs imposed by other countries (yes, other countries have been imposing tariffs for decades).
The USA can use that money that way. It's not though. Spending isn't decreasing and any savings in tax has easily been overwhelmed by the increased costs facing consumers, especially in the last two years.
But did you omit Biden (or did you not)? IOW shouldn't you have said "THREE dangerous buffoons"?
reply