355
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2026
355 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
88814 readers
5252 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I must be missing something, because you're getting a bunch of upvotes. I don't disagree with anything you said, but it feels like a total non-sequitur to what I was saying.
Yes - proper air-gapping is a good idea. But asking the big AI labs to air gap is kind of pointless. Liability already gives them legal incentives to avoid incidents. If that didn't stop them, a letter signed by a bunch of academics sure won't. More importantly, open-weight models capable of doing all the things that we're concerned about are already in the hands of bad actors around the world.
This letter is asking us to lock the front door of the house when the back wall is missing.
The majority of lemmy seems to not understand the concept of a pandoras box and tends to just talk in circles are the reality of the situation to various degrees.
People are too hung up on hating AI to actually stop and look around them and realize what is physically and technically possible basically doesn't align at all which 99.99% of what people want to happen.
Stricter regulation and holding people responsible for their agents should be a thing yes and no one sane will disagree.
But the reality of how that's even do able is VASTLY different then what people want it to mean.
No it isn't. We could have comprehensive regulations by this time tomorrow if the people in power had the will to.
That's quite optimistic, especially since there's almost no enforcement of liability.
Computational resources are the limiting factor. AI companies have resources which no independent actor could ever dream of, which makes them far more dangerous to the general public. A chihuahua with an attitude problem can only do so much damage. A Great Dane with an attitude problem is a threat no one can afford to ignore.