I don’t understand the bases of all these recommendations. AI is an asset for national security. It will be developed and incidents will happen, no different from other national security programs.
Someday, laws will be useful to curtail plebian misuse of AI. It is naïve bordering on silly to think such laws would be put in place and genuinely applied to frontier AI development.
By the way, the HF incident is not Three Mile Island or Chernobyl—-it is a very interesting data point where unintended things happened to existing 1s and 0s.
Yeah cybersecurity as a field is a joke. Who cares what happens to existing 1s and 0s? People get worked up over the silliest things, as though numbers on a server could affect real people.
I’m not suggesting that Three Mile Island was anything like Chernobyl. I’m saying that neither is comparable to the HF situation where mere 1s and 0s interacted in an unplanned way. It’s an interesting data point—-back to work.
Not is the HF data point anywhere near a Three Mile Island type incident. Most commentary I read is a wild overreaction fueled by paranoia, to say nothing about my other point about the implications of AI as a national security asset.
Someday, laws will be useful to curtail plebian misuse of AI. It is naïve bordering on silly to think such laws would be put in place and genuinely applied to frontier AI development.
By the way, the HF incident is not Three Mile Island or Chernobyl—-it is a very interesting data point where unintended things happened to existing 1s and 0s.