I don't think it such a bad idea that the Big Ai labs put money into a fund for their negligence, but that should not relieve them of criminal liabilities
my consternation is that they likely have sufficient money to avoid consequences, like the sacks and the opioid epidemic, two-tier justice system at it's finest...
In reality, it is a big scam to trick the public into thinking AI is dangerous and needs to be regulated. Then the government can limit it so only the preferred companies can continue to develop it.
It's because both frontier companies are worried about plateauing and there's no barrier to competition. They both have upcoming IPOs, too.
To be fair, I think most of this is sci-fi brain rot, but the fact that 2 trillion-dollar companies supposedly have RSI as their #1 priority by a long shot is concerning to me
Copyright might be part of this; I haven’t thought that through. But this restriction is about whose turf they’re trying to push their product on. SNL has to be pushed through a different distributor in different regions.
This is the best thing Jane Wickline has done. I worried about whether she was on the bubble because she's so situational (I think that's a good thing), but clearly she's got staying power.
I generally don't think SNL is very funny but I think it's quite socially healthy that they make fun of the political and economic elites. I wonder if we mapped out their targets if there would be any glaring omissions that would stand out.
This video didn't make me laugh but I appreciate the flexing of the first amendment. They should continue with other AI-related figures.
I disagree there are so many other ways to be funny than making fun of someone's stuttering. We shouldn't be bullying people delivering trillions of dollars of value to society.
That is literally bullying. especially when those insecurities are something that can not be fixed. You can't excuse bullying because "it's for humor." It's cruel.
When Dario talks to himself sotto voce and then answers himself in a raspy voice, Gollum-like, made me lose it. I once encountered a severely cognitively deficient individual on the bus who calmed himself in the exact same fashion. It's almost a perfectly succinct psychological snapshot of the character they're trying to create.
I know it’s a little OT, but I keep seeing the same misquotation all over the place. Right at the beginning Michael Che refers to the claim that “there’s a 10% chance that AI could wipe out humanity within 10 years.”
But that isn’t what the often-misquoted current and former Anthropic employees said. They said it was a 10% chance of it happening by the end of the current decade [0], i.e. by 2030, not 2036.
You are wrong. The confusion arises because Coxon said “within the decade” with no associated probability and Hubinger said “within the next decade” at 10%.
Hey how about we go back to LLM/AI being a simple knowledge request service? You have a model trained on data, you request a text or media response from that knowledge model.
No agents. And if someone loops the response into an agent, well, then they are legally liable for personally doing that.
I for one am glad to see society moving from deference to skepticism of these valley elite
It's all just a big scam to scare the public into buying robot insurance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4Gh_IcK8UM
lol, that's good
Lawfare Media recently, actually proposed a mutualize insurance system for Ai
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/bootstrapping-frontier-...
I don't think it such a bad idea that the Big Ai labs put money into a fund for their negligence, but that should not relieve them of criminal liabilities
my consternation is that they likely have sufficient money to avoid consequences, like the sacks and the opioid epidemic, two-tier justice system at it's finest...
An insurance policy with a robot plan? Certainly, I’m too old!
Does it apply when robo-advisors make bad investments?
In reality, it is a big scam to trick the public into thinking AI is dangerous and needs to be regulated. Then the government can limit it so only the preferred companies can continue to develop it.
It's because both frontier companies are worried about plateauing and there's no barrier to competition. They both have upcoming IPOs, too.
To be fair, I think most of this is sci-fi brain rot, but the fact that 2 trillion-dollar companies supposedly have RSI as their #1 priority by a long shot is concerning to me
How long until the President of the United States threatens to pull licenses for NBC over their anti-AI viewpoint?
it’s alright, they’re making fun of the “security risk” Anthropic’s CEO, not their darling Altman
Trump doesn’t like Dario, he has been invited to White House I guess to make him stop causing drama https://x.com/Polymarket/status/2104238992254222679?s=20
Copyright is another threat to humanity.
Here you go: https://www.instagram.com/reels/Ddxyuq4N9vj/ (had the same problem)
It's so stupid, like why would they block it on YouTube, but not on instagram. Is the copyright law only applicable in YouTube
Copyright might be part of this; I haven’t thought that through. But this restriction is about whose turf they’re trying to push their product on. SNL has to be pushed through a different distributor in different regions.
This is the best thing Jane Wickline has done. I worried about whether she was on the bubble because she's so situational (I think that's a good thing), but clearly she's got staying power.
i just learned her partner is named Henry Hornbuckle now this is power couple we deserve but not the one we need right now
I generally don't think SNL is very funny but I think it's quite socially healthy that they make fun of the political and economic elites. I wonder if we mapped out their targets if there would be any glaring omissions that would stand out.
This video didn't make me laugh but I appreciate the flexing of the first amendment. They should continue with other AI-related figures.
I disagree there are so many other ways to be funny than making fun of someone's stuttering. We shouldn't be bullying people delivering trillions of dollars of value to society.
the idea of a caricature is to exaggerate the features someone is most insecure about. That's what Spitting Image is.
That is literally bullying. especially when those insecurities are something that can not be fixed. You can't excuse bullying because "it's for humor." It's cruel.
[delayed]
You can't bully someone so much more powerful. Bullying is saying AI will replace devs, 10% chance of everybody dying, etc.
Agreed. I wish they would have thrown in a "guardrails to stop me, but mostly my competitors" so the public would think about that possibility more.
When Dario talks to himself sotto voce and then answers himself in a raspy voice, Gollum-like, made me lose it. I once encountered a severely cognitively deficient individual on the bus who calmed himself in the exact same fashion. It's almost a perfectly succinct psychological snapshot of the character they're trying to create.
Is this supposed to be funny?
Hard to comprehend how we've gone from Norm MacDonald being so relentlessly bold he was fired, to this sterility, in 30 years.
Dario?
Her character's voice at times me of that Rick and Morty court room sketch. NSFW:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vN_PEmeKb0
I urge you to urge me to stop is critical Super Dario
It’s not funny. It could be, Dario is idiosyncratic enough they could have done a really good send up of him, this just wasn’t it.
To be honest I struggle to understand why SNL endures. It has never been funny with very very few exceptions.
I know it’s a little OT, but I keep seeing the same misquotation all over the place. Right at the beginning Michael Che refers to the claim that “there’s a 10% chance that AI could wipe out humanity within 10 years.”
But that isn’t what the often-misquoted current and former Anthropic employees said. They said it was a 10% chance of it happening by the end of the current decade [0], i.e. by 2030, not 2036.
0: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/09/anthropic...
But what does it matter? It’s not like that number is based on any science. It’s literally p (doom | vibes).
what does the scientific literature say then?
You are wrong. The confusion arises because Coxon said “within the decade” with no associated probability and Hubinger said “within the next decade” at 10%.
Hey how about we go back to LLM/AI being a simple knowledge request service? You have a model trained on data, you request a text or media response from that knowledge model.
No agents. And if someone loops the response into an agent, well, then they are legally liable for personally doing that.