You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
8 points

Continuing a line of thought I had previously, part of me suspects that SB 1047’s existence is a consequence of the “AI safety” criti-hype turning out to be a double-edged sword.

The industry’s sold these things as potentially capable of unleashing Terminator-style doomsday scenarios orders of magnitude worse than the various ways they’re already hurting everyone, its no shock that it might spur some regulation to try and keep it in check.

Opposing the bill also does a good job of making e/acc bros look bad to everyone around them, since it paints them as actively opposing attempts to prevent a potential AI apocalypse - an apocalypse that, by their own myths, they will be complicit in causing.

permalink
report
parent
reply

TechTakes

!techtakes@awful.systems

Create post

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here’s the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

Community stats

  • 2K

    Monthly active users

  • 329

    Posts

  • 5.9K

    Comments

Community moderators