So much hyperbole. Some good nuggets in the article but it would be better if the author took one of his allegations and went deep on it, instead of trying to whip the reader into a froth with a slew of nebulous claims that are never fully substantiated.
Yes they claim that AI is more powerful than nuclear weapons. But nuclear weapons give a person the power to eliminate a city of 10 million people with the push of a button. So I kind of think nuclear weapons are still more powerful than AI. I think the real kernel of truth here is that AI companies are trying to control a narrative to justify government contracts. They want to be too big to fail. When you become too big to fail you get to run your airplanes into the ground, make shitty cars, dump oil into the ocean a million barrels a day on accident, lend money to people who have clearly no ability to pay it back, and other shenanigans all for the cost of a slap on the wrist.
I'll consider this!
They all admit they don't understand how their models actually work, yet they want us to trust them with everything.
Then I realized what's really happening is they're racing for the biggest corporate prize in history...a potential $50 trillion valuation.