skinfaxi

I can't edit my comment now but appreciate the responses I was indeed ignorant and this seemingly innocuous change is obviously not.

The key change seems to be innocuous:

> The Commission is modifying 17 CFR 200.41, which establishes the Commission's quorum requirement. Three commissioners will continue to constitute a quorum of the Commission, with two important exceptions. First, consistent with the current rule, if the number of commissioners in office is two or one, that number is sufficient for a quorum. Second, if the number of commissioners in office minus the number disqualified from consideration with respect to a matter is two or one, then that number of commissioners constitutes a quorum for purposes of that matter.

Why would disabling an antenna void insurance?

What do you mean dedicated per type? Like a python-flavored read tool for .py files?

AI is more like a nuke than a wheel. Do you disagree? Can you suggest a less manipulative framing? I am personally a proponent of open source AI and models but I found this cabal framing strange when we do indeed rely on this kind of control for other world-altering technologies. And AI is different in that it enables technological development in ways quite unlike the wheel in a general sense.

It never was. We are reaping what was sowed years ago.

Fuck everything about this.

Why? That seems like a shallow dismissal. Why is a world changing technology okay in the hands of a small cabal in the one case and not another?

> When access to AI gives you abilities you cannot use responsibly, you shouldn't have access to that.

What do you mean "cannot"? As in you are granted abilities that have no responsible use?

Didn't Mexican cartels kidnap telco workers to build them separate infra? We expect terrorists to be less resourceful?

Would you apply this reasoning to the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

edit: why is the parent rationale sensible for AI and not nuclear technology?

Sounds like the perfect use of an LLM.

There's some time between now and eventually, which is to say if it is not a sudden change we have time to adapt.

Cybernetics is older than you.

I wonder if the same was once said about calculating machines and calculators.

Ah so you were just trolling.

Is not some regulation necessary? Spectrum is limited. You seem to have thought a lot about this so curious about your perspective.

> but I am pretty partial to direct ownership of a percentage.

What does that look like in practice?

You can decline but then they can seize is that right?

Your belief is misplaced and incorrect.

I went to give it a try but it's a hosted SaaS and no privacy policy or anything?

So someone who was previously unknown brought all this attention on themselves while being a coy billionaire? We live in strange times so it's possible but doubtful.

> Cost of litigation should be proportional to a reasonable settlement.

What do you mean by this?

You missed my point. Is it easier to discover a novel exploit than it is to build software that is exploitable?

> Whenever I’ve seen AI researchers talk about the possibility of AI writing fiction they always sound very confused about why people read novels.

Why do people read novels? For the story or something else?

Is it easier to discover a vulnerability than to introduce one?

What's that second line of business?

> These are effectively the next OS.

What do you mean by that? In what way?

So what's the allowed level of voter fraud we should accept? And the fact check is about votes not registered voters. Funny how it focuses on national elections when local elections can be swayed by handfuls of votes.

Didn't it recently come to light of NJ registering thousands of non-citizens to vote?