this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2026
410 points (98.1% liked)

News

39484 readers
2263 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Boss of OpenAI calls for a regulatory light touch because of the ‘good stuff’ the technology can deliver

The chief executive of OpenAI cited hacks, scams and “other bad things that will happen” in an interview that sparked an instant backlash from critics of the big AI companies. His comments came after one of his company’s safety experts resigned, saying at the weekend that its “culture is broken”.

In an interview released on Monday, Altman was asked about how OpenAI’s approach to safety differed from that of Anthropic, which has called for the industry to slow down after one of its researchers quit, warning that AI experts believed “it could kill us all by the end of the decade”.

“I think there’s a lot of daylight,” Altman said. “One of the differences between us and some of the stricter AI safety people is that we believe that the world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology and people having the agency [to use AI widely].

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lucius_Sweet@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This case has not even gone to trial yet but you have already made up your mind based on some hear say and tabloid drivel. I am glad you are not judge, jury and executioner in this case because your mind is clearly made up. I do not claim to know what happened, I would rather wait for the facts to be determined at trial and justice served. You are simping so hard for Altman I am trying to decide if you just love him or hate women in general? Either that or you are actually Sam Altman.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

My brother in christ this all started as a sex assault allegation, which is very serious, with me simply stating my opinion that it looks like a weak case. You're over-analyzing this and turning my simple opinion into something it really isn't. Now I'm loving Altman?? Take a step back, I'm done here.

[–] Lucius_Sweet@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

You are going out of your denigrate the woman before the case has been heard based on nothing more than your stupid opinion.

If the subject matter of the case was frivolous the wild speculation would not bother me. When dealing with the serious issues of rape and pedophilia your "simple opinion" amounting to trashing the woman's reputation without solid evidence is dangerous and you are a disgusting individual. This is just my simple opinion, now it is time for you to step back and keep your stupid opinions to yourself.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Listen here you little shit. You do not start yelling "HE'S A RAPIST" before any evidence or court closure. Do you understand the meaning behind "innocent until proven guilty"? I commented on the fucking case, you keep making this into something else. Her lifestyle is part of the case.

Everyone is allowed to comment how strong or weak the case looks, and you can state your opinion too without becoming a fucking redditor with "your opinion is invalid and stupid because it does not match my opinion"

Fuck you.

[–] Lucius_Sweet@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Settle down there chicken, can see you're getting a bit hot under the collar. Are you always this emotional or maybe it's your time of the month?

You do not start yelling "HE'S A RAPIST" before any evidence or court closure.

I never said this, I stayed that I am staying objective until the court case. There is no need for you to put words in my mouth, I am perfecty capable of articulating my own thoughts thank you very much. Your argument is clearly so weak you had to invent a straw man to fight.

You falsely accuse me of prejudging Mr. Altman while you actively prejudge the woman in this case. Can you see your own hypocrisy or are you too dumb to notice?

Now jog on little fella, you are making a show of yourself.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 points 1 hour ago

I think you should go back and read the original comment that started this discussion. You inserted yourself into it and now you think I'm accusing you, not stating my opinion on the topic. Stop with the logical fallacy arguments if you yourself tend to be expert at using them.

maybe it's your time of the month?

Did you just say I'm just a woman on period?