@Metal-Brain saidYou need to take robotics and AI 101. THEY DO HAVE HANDS, they are called robots and you are blind if you think AI could not take them over, even DUMB AI.
No, you don't understand. AI has no hands. No feet. No robot army under their control exists. You are parroting sci-fi nonsense. This is not a terminator movie.
If it did happen like a terminator movie just shut off the electric grid. Simple solution to save humanity. Now tell me how shutting off the electric grid is not something you want to resort to even to save the ...[text shortened]... ple to learn how to buy it on the dark web. But they cannot program AI to not hack? You know better.
1 edit
@sonhouse saidTake them over how and why?
You need to take robotics and AI 101. THEY DO HAVE HANDS, they are called robots and you are blind if you think AI could not take them over, even DUMB AI.
Because the US military tells an AI to?
Who regulates the US military? Government? How is that going so far?
Open AI already let the military have it. They claim it is safe because it will be cloud only. But that looks to me like Open AI is regulating the military because of this part of it:
"We think our red lines are more enforceable here because deployment is limited to cloud-only (not at the edge), keeps our safety stack working in the way we think is best, and keeps cleared OpenAI personnel in the loop."
And note this part:
"Will this deal enable the Department of War to use OpenAI models to power autonomous weapons?
"No. Based on our safety stack, our cloud-only deployment, the contract language, and existing laws, regulation and policy, we are confident that this cannot happen. We will also have OpenAI personnel in the loop for additional assurance."
Open AI says there is already regulation. Regulation by who? Open AI? Government? And is that regulation not good enough? Are you calling for "additional" regulation or is this whole thread about nothing? Because Open AI says it is already regulated.
https://openai.com/index/our-agreement-with-the-department-of-war/
Is Open AI being kept in the loop going to save humanity? And why don't we hear more about this "safety stack" Open AI brought up? Does their safety stack prevent hacking? Didn't Anthropic have a safety stack to prevent hacking? If no, why not? Does it have one now? When Open Sam Altman said AI could kill us 3 years ago did Open AI have a safety stack?
@Metal-Brain saidDon't worry, be happy.
Take them over how and why?
Because the US military tells an AI to?
Who regulates the US military? Government? How is that going so far?
Open AI already let the military have it. They claim it is safe because it will be cloud only. But that looks to me like Open AI is regulating the military because of this part of it:
"We think our red lines are more enforceable ...[text shortened]... ave one now? When Open Sam Altman said AI could kill us 3 years ago did Open AI have a safety stack?
@sonhouse
That is my advice to you. AI is only dangerous if you let Irregular do the testing. Turns out every escape we were told about was due to the incompetence of Irregular. An Israeli company.
Why do they keep hiring Irregular to do testing when they keep screwing it up? Are they rewarding incompetence? Or are these big AI companies getting the exact service they wanted? Even Nvidia's CEO Huang suspects an ulterior motive.
Nvidia's Jensen Huang says AI CEOs have 'ulterior reasons' for warning about doomsday
https://www.businessinsider.com/nvidia-jensen-huang-ai-regulation-anthropic-amodei-openai-altman-trump-2026-9
@sonhouse
https://www.cfact.org/2026/10/20/the-ai-policy-debate-suffers-from-a-dangerous-plague-of-vagueness/