Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout

Note Detail

B💣b ❤️‍🔥📿🇺🇸🪆🍀🥋_🎰@smithy@shitposter.world (2026-09-15 06:53:43)
See so many arguments formulated this way that aim to assuage concern by reducing what's appears to be a difference in kind/essence to one that's merely different in degree/sophistication -- don't think it really works even if true.
---Attachments---
image: https://media.shitposter.world/shitposter.club/ed/91/33/ed913329aa6d9eeaf8c4dd1cb9f60e59bb6fbfd7eb58bb6c2ca5a2f506eff05d.webp?name=YpMrhEerOAxtmw.webp
---Reply---
Blurry Moon@sun@shitposter.world (2026-09-15 07:00:02)
@smithy my interpretation is that yes it is powerful and dangerous, but a lot of these things are deliberate mischaracterizations of the events, by the big ai saas companies, to scare people into regulating ai. the end result being, legally kneecap open source models so they protect their revenue stream. feels contradictory but they need you to be unreasonably scared of AI so that you kill off their competitors and they can sell the dangerous tech to the government, who places no restrictions on itself regarding dangerous tech (see: nuclear weapons, gov gets them and you don't)

---Replies---

B💣b ❤️‍🔥📿🇺🇸🪆🍀🥋_🎰@smithy@shitposter.world (2026-09-15 07:04:04)
@sun Definitely makes sense -- especially given that maintaining a moat for the big frontier labs seems so difficult and freakishly costly (and we're seeing that in how close open source models can get with fractions of the cost), but I don't think the right response to potentially regulatory capture is to take the opposite PR approach to hand-wave away concerns as some ppl seem to be doing.