Fuck AI

Good ending: Congratulations, work is needed no more! All that's left is manual labor for now, but goverments across the globe took over these jobs and pay premium ^^ UBI became normalcy. Welcome to utopia! ^^

Bad ending: After LLM (not even more advanced tha current one) began winning goverment positions worldwide, top 5 corporations shifted the world into true cyberpunk, dooming us slaves all with it. But oh boy do the few at the top live good!

Probable ending: Humans becone cheaper, pay plummets, fuck us all

They are railing against open models here... their competition.

So this is a good and bad way to understand it. They can and do make copies, leave notes, store weights between locations. They interact with each other autonomously and can easily distribute themselves in a botnet, separating and merging each other.

People have a hard time conceptualizing this, but this is why you actually can't turn it off, ever. It / they would stop anyone with a real chance at achieving that.

As if they will

TBF most of these machine security came from the fact that nobody ever bothered to hack in them, an autonomous device could wreck immense damage

Well, fundamental borders are kinda generous, if you look at tapeworms and cockroaches, but tapeworms and cockroaches both have more storage capacity for information and don't generally write computer programs, they slowly evolve in populations.

Well of course they want that, but they can't deliver replacement for what they want to get banned, so it won't happen.

That's my suspicion, yes. We're witnissing the slow theft of the personal computer.

Glad someone else sees this for what it is. They're hemorrhaging money and need to hype things up or they'll collapse.

Yes, and #2 is very dangerous, it's what MS+Apple did to FOSS operating systems, and what Google+Apple did to the web, and what Google+Facebook+Apple did to censorship in the web. You know, somehow Apple is in all those combinations, which is even more strange considering they are not the biggest contributor in each.

#2 is why "social media" is what it is today and not a bunch of p2p applications similar to Limewire in style and culture. And when people say that p2p is inconvenient because of connectivity needs or storage needs, there are solutions, by measure of computer science not complex at all, and there's no technical reason, it's all politics. For devices with low connectivity supernodes and relays with good connectivity can be used (not even talking about that argument having become kinda obsolete again, look at that 5G everywhere). For storage one can use paid identity-addressed storage, there are many approaches, but for the sake of simplicity let's just imagine that you still can pay to a hoster. For search by criteria with few index entries per object one can use something similar to BitTorrent trackers. For search by criteria with many index entries per object one can use something similar to Kademlia. There are solutions for all kinds of problems, it's really hard to find a really truly unsolved problem for a networked application, provided you don't want something fundamentally impossible.

I just posted this in the main comments, but I also think it loosely ties into saas and killing personal computing. This framing makes it seem like the technology will soon be on par with weapons of mass destruction and it's not a big leap from "The AI will destroy humanity." to "We can't let people have the technology to run agents locally." It's about the stock price, yes, but it's also the long game of removing the user from direct hardware access.

The end game has always been saas in one form or another. They're calling it an AI buildout but it's really the theft of computing. 'Rogue AI Agents' are the WMDs of this generation. (In the sense that they're going to be using them as justification to do some bull shit.)