They've been saying so from the beginning, and yet did not take the basic precaution of airgapping their off-the-leash model while it's been instructed to succeed at a hacking benchmark by any means necessary. So which is it? I _want_ to believe them, I do, but there's always these gaps between what they say and their actions on display that give me reason to think otherwise.

▲

nozzlegear 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Precisely. "Aw jeez, we finally built the T-1000, but all it wants to do is kill John Connor – just like we warned! Why did I give it live ammunition and unsupervised time machine access?"

▲

cwnyth an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

He wouldn't be the first reckless CEO...

▲

mplappert an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” (or carelessness in this case)

	▲	overgard 9 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I'm fairly certain they're both malicious and stupid.
	▲	rubyfan an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I would attribute it to profit motive instead of either stupidity or malice.
	▲	cryptoz an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		FWIW, I used to love this phrase but over recent years have come to understand it is quite damaging. We live in a society where evil frequently hides behind a ‘stupid’ label, and people bring this quote up to defend or soften actions that are indeed done out of specific malicious intent.

▲

arisAlexis an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

They said: AI is becoming dangerously autonomous and capable. Proof of today's breach. Crowd "hey why didn't you say so, c'mon it's marketing". Them "we said so".