this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2026
825 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

87956 readers
3555 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 9 points 59 minutes ago

How about you propose life without parole for the CEOs, Bernie boy?

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 21 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

We can't even punish blatantly obvious theft and bribery in our own government, at this point, why bother with another law?

I like Bernie, but he seems so quaint now compared to what he is up against. Good luck guy

[–] IamMoonPie@lemmy.world 2 points 50 minutes ago

I’ve been trying to figure out why he’s been— bothering me so much lately and you put it into words so perfectly. He’s to quaint for this world now.

[–] irish_link@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Considering people have already tried to develop missiles and other systems with Anthropic and other AI systems it seems like this is warranted and on point with the rogue nuclear power. It can be used by anyone to potentially develop mass deadly weapons.

https://apnews.com/article/yemen-houthis-anthropic-ai-missiles-9b20934e031ff3d99dd8bb49d85d97a9

[–] spacegoat@lemmy.world 88 points 6 hours ago (4 children)

There are people facing weed sentences with harsher time than developing rogue nuclear weapons

Imagine getting thrown into the oubliette for growing Girl Scout Cookies next to the roses.

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 19 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

Americans are INSANE about how much the want criminals punished, in CA a guy got a life sentence for stealing a pizza when we tried to have a ''three strikes your out'' law that automatically gave life sentences at any third conviction which is fucking crazy in a state with tack on laws to the point you can get convicted of 10+ crimes on almost every single infraction, if you commit a felony with a pen or pencil in your pocket, that's possession of a lethal weapon! it's absurd. it's still on the books the three strikes law, but it's unenforceable because apparently having 60% of your population in prison for life is not a great plan for a civilization.

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 points 57 minutes ago
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

America has Private Prisons + Slavery is literally legal in the US for those in Prison.

As usual, it's performative moralism hiding the real reason: $$$.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 8 points 3 hours ago

got to have stable source of slave labour

[–] njordomir@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

That stuck out to me too. Who knew AK-47 and Sour Zzzkittles carried more prison time than enriched Uranium. To be fair, they'll include a bunch of other charges for both scenarios.

[–] xrs@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Well, they were probably trying to develop that weed into rogue nuclear weapons.

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Wouldn't work. You'll get blasted high, but what the missing is the mushroom

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 points 56 minutes ago

Yeah that's another drug.

[–] heartSagan5@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I assume then there is an exception for the military, and it will have no teeth because of that.

People ought to realize the "military industrial complex" is also where they send things like burn pits, which means they don't care much about environmental or physiological issues.

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 9 points 4 hours ago

I mean I don't buy any of it but I am still ok with this. It would be sooo fun to pass this law and see how fast they turn from AI doomsayers to AI cynics.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 61 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

TIL, developing nuclear weapons is only 20 years in prison.

[–] modus@lemmy.world 12 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Detonation is another ten.

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 7 points 5 hours ago

So you're saying I could get out before my retirement?

[–] crashfrog@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

It’s not illegal to develop nuclear weapons. It’s illegal to endanger people with nuclear materials, though

[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago

Ikr, I chose the wrong profession

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 12 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Now do the same for genociders and their supporters. Lets get back to standing against facsism too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 38 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Bernie falling for the trap. The AI companies want regulatory capture. They have NO moat otherwise.

If those comps are breaking laws, they need to be prosecuted for that. We don’t need new laws that can be exploited by the billionaires.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Huh? When companies are exploiting loopholes in laws that never took the new technology into account, you need new laws to close them.

If companies are claiming the AI agent is responsible, you need to codify that the AI agent can't be responsible and determined who is (the company or the model creator)

[–] kungen@feddit.nu 2 points 3 hours ago

you need to codify that the AI agent can't be responsible and determined who is (the company or the model creator)

Sure. But that's not exactly what the proposed law is though?

These companies all want to be captured, "we're so dangerous, America is going to get destroyed if we're not mainlined into that $1 trillion/year 'defense' budget!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 hours ago

Pfft, didn't you hear? The only thing that is necessary to keep AI from going insane is a smart president.

[–] kn0wmad1c@programming.dev 36 points 8 hours ago (22 children)

This is nice and everything, but this whole thing is just a huge marketing push by AI companies. AI is not going to kill us. At least not directly (see point 2).

  1. You need prohibitively expensive equipment to host AI. That equipment needs to be plugged in. If it were truly dangerous, you just need to unplug it.

  2. You need a lot of water to cool the equipment that can run a supposed super intelligence. If we pass regulations about how much of our environment these data centers can destroy, that would curb the abilities of this superintelligence.

  3. AI is fucking dumb. AI is a misnomer since it doesn't actually have any intelligence. It is derivative and cannot perform any necessary tasks that actually drive intelligence. For example, it will be able to tell you every established law in any field of science because it has that information in its corpus, but it will never be able to establish a new law. Or discover anything new in any field.

This whole thing is a push to get people to believe that AI is more capable than it really is so that these companies can draw more money from investors so that 'they'd be able to implement proper safeguards."

[–] qqq@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

This is pretty naive. Distributing computing has existed since forever. It would run significantly more slowly, but there is nothing theoretically stopping the "LLM broke out of containment and moved itself elsewhere" boogie man from becoming a reality. The available exploitable compute from unsecured IoT devices is pretty substantial as things like the Mirai botnet have shown. While this isn't the most easily distributed problem, there is no fundamental issue here. [Edit: it also wouldn't need to "exfiltrate itself" to cause persistent harm. Could easily just install malware on infected hosts]

AI isn't "dumb" in a practical real world sense. LLMs have shown themselves capable of exploitation on the open Internet and of finding zero day vulnerabilities. Do you have any idea how much of our critical infrastructure can be reachable by some sort of network? LLMs have shown themselves capable of manipulating people via speech. None of this requires some sort of "super intelligence" and it doesn't even require some sort of provable intelligence: it's all quite possible as things currently stand right now.

These may not be "the entire future is over" level issues, but there is significant risk here and it shouldn't be ignored just because we think AI companies are horrible. Is an LLM going to make us all batteries or paper clips? No, but it could cause significant physical and/or economic harm temporarily.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] IEatDaFeesh@lemmy.world 24 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

Accepting that you are right on all 3 points, the supercharged push of AI is destroying the country (and the world) by itself. Prices are sky high, AI is being prioritized with regards to water rather than actual humans, and the results are plateauing relative to the resources expended. We won't get an obvious negative outcome, it's more insidious and systemic which is just as dangerous as Skynet if left unaddressed. So AI is probably not going to kill us in the Terminator Skynet sense, it WILL kill us through economic and water related means.

Having said that, I think Bernie is doing the superintelligence argument (even though it's probably not the immediate threat) because the people are retarded. The thing that can bring us together are pieces of art like Terminator and so using that as a reference makes it relatable to all the retards rather than giving them a nuanced explanation.

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago

100%. This is Bernie using their own words against them. They keep saying it's super dangerous guys, incredibly powerful.. And Bernie is turning around and using that narrative to help slow the AI bubble.

Sounds good to me.

Anyone who thinks Bernie 'fell for it' is missing the point.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] boonhet@lemmy.zip 190 points 11 hours ago (24 children)

I'm sure Bernie has good intentions but this is exactly what Altman and Amodei want and why they're constantly shouting how dangerous AI is.

Any AI startup can then be labeled as developing artificial superintelligence. Not them though, they're working together with the government.

[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I get your point, but I also argue "no it's not." The AI bros want to lie about how their super-special autocomplete is the most dangerous of all without any consequences. Good luck getting any employees to willingly substantiate your claims when 20 years in prison is on the line.

Even better, if they try to hack another company and claim their AI did it on its own, they get treated like a private company who decided to perform an unsanctioned nuclear test.

Make it dangerous for them to claim they're dangerous.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Okay, fair, it's not the ONLY reason they claim it's dangerous. Obviously marketing is a large part of it. But they sure as hell would both like a duopoly setup enforced by LAW for themselves. Well at this point, I guess quadropoly? I doubt Google or Musk would give up their seats at the table. But anyone making an AI better or cheaper than the established players, would be deemed dangerous. Those working with the DoD would of course not be considered dangerous. Foreign models? Absolutely dangerous, restrict access as much as possible, especially to open weight ones.

[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Hmmm... Good point. I made the mistake of forgetting that no one will play fairly.

load more comments (23 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›