this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2026
998 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

88025 readers
3834 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] arc99@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

The easiest way to regulate the AI industry - and any industry for that matter - is to make the board personally liable for any crimes committed by their product. Not liable in a corporate sense with a fine and a slap on the wrist, when their AI hacks into a water reservoir and causes 500 million of flood damage, but in a 20 years in federal prison sense. Same goes for self driving cars, or any other computer, machinery or combination thereof where humans are placing trust in its safe and legal operation. There should be a corporate negligence law of sorts that says if a company is not following the law, industry best practice, including auditing and implementation of all safeguards, safety and other mitigations then they are exposed to criminal liability.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Here's my idea: We arrest and execute all AI executives and lead developers, going by their definition of danger. Non-lead devs: 35 years in prison; AI boosters: 20 years in prison; both forced to only consume AI generated slop, the only place where we still temporarily allow the technology.

[–] kalleboo@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

both forced to only consume AI generated slop

Let's force them to eat food that looks like the food does on the AI generated menus, with the weird tire shrimp and all

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

only consume AI generated slop, the only place where we still temporarily allow the technology.

jfc full on torture.

maybe for musk and altman lol

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 33 points 9 hours ago

is it just me, or is 20 years for a rogue nuclear weapon seem a bit light?

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Better idea. Let's make it a capital offense. Call it "treason against mankind."

[–] dumnezero@piefed.social 3 points 3 hours ago

That would be interesting, as it's headed in the direction of "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity", but those tend to be international standards, and the US regime trying to attack and destroy these courts.

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 19 points 11 hours ago

How about you propose life without parole for the CEOs, Bernie boy?

[–] eah@programming.dev 5 points 8 hours ago

These AI labs shouldn't be private profit-seeking corporations. They should be more like publicly-funded nonprofit research institutions like Fermilab or something. It doesn't seem possible to even talk about the labs without feeling like you're increasing their value. That's a problem. It's also a problem that the research and announcements from the labs sound like publicity stunts. It's hard to tell what's genuine and what's buzz for the press. There's this arms race between the labs that's negatively affecting seemingly everything. This should all just be put to an end. Step on the brakes. I don't claim to know how to do that when the Constitution makes private property sacred, but, you know, just throwing the idea out there... The Constitution can always be changed.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 36 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

We can't even punish blatantly obvious theft and bribery in our own government, at this point, why bother with another law?

I like Bernie, but he seems so quaint now compared to what he is up against. Good luck guy

[–] IamMoonPie@lemmy.world 8 points 11 hours ago

I’ve been trying to figure out why he’s been— bothering me so much lately and you put it into words so perfectly. He’s to quaint for this world now.

[–] spacegoat@lemmy.world 120 points 16 hours ago (6 children)

There are people facing weed sentences with harsher time than developing rogue nuclear weapons

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 37 points 15 hours ago (5 children)

Americans are INSANE about how much the want criminals punished, in CA a guy got a life sentence for stealing a pizza when we tried to have a ''three strikes your out'' law that automatically gave life sentences at any third conviction which is fucking crazy in a state with tack on laws to the point you can get convicted of 10+ crimes on almost every single infraction, if you commit a felony with a pen or pencil in your pocket, that's possession of a lethal weapon! it's absurd. it's still on the books the three strikes law, but it's unenforceable because apparently having 60% of your population in prison for life is not a great plan for a civilization.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

America has Private Prisons + Slavery is literally legal in the US for those in Prison.

As usual, it's performative moralism hiding the real reason: $$$.

[–] OriginalTangle@feddit.org 1 points 4 hours ago

Performative moralism is a neat term to describe that part of the equation.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 14 points 14 hours ago

got to have stable source of slave labour

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 4 points 11 hours ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] njordomir@lemmy.world 7 points 13 hours ago

That stuck out to me too. Who knew AK-47 and Sour Zzzkittles carried more prison time than enriched Uranium. To be fair, they'll include a bunch of other charges for both scenarios.

[–] GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago

Imagine getting thrown into the oubliette for growing Girl Scout Cookies next to the roses.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 73 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

TIL, developing nuclear weapons is only 20 years in prison.

[–] modus@lemmy.world 17 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Detonation is another ten.

[–] MrNobody@quokk.au 4 points 9 hours ago

Possessing a zine is 50.

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 11 points 16 hours ago

So you're saying I could get out before my retirement?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 49 points 17 hours ago (5 children)

Bernie falling for the trap. The AI companies want regulatory capture. They have NO moat otherwise.

If those comps are breaking laws, they need to be prosecuted for that. We don’t need new laws that can be exploited by the billionaires.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 1 points 2 hours ago

sounds like that’s exactly what he proposed

My instinct is the same as yours but we must make an exception for, specifically, calling for dusting off the perfectly serviceable existing regulations which apply

I call this rule “we have regulations at home”

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 5 hours ago

his recent spate of "demanding laws" with AI seems odd, as if it was benefiting them.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] boonhet@lemmy.zip 224 points 22 hours ago (12 children)

I'm sure Bernie has good intentions but this is exactly what Altman and Amodei want and why they're constantly shouting how dangerous AI is.

Any AI startup can then be labeled as developing artificial superintelligence. Not them though, they're working together with the government.

[–] core@leminal.space 68 points 21 hours ago (11 children)

If AI is so dangerous it needs to be immediately banned. The only allowed usage (If any) is research and it is heavily restricted, with heavy oversight from multiple governments. Otherwise its just bullshit

[–] SSUPII@sopuli.xyz 62 points 20 hours ago (4 children)

It is not. They are spouting this lie and prompting their models to go rogue because they want to be the only trusted company that can "handle them". It's all about control and creating a monopoly.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] irish_link@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Considering people have already tried to develop missiles and other systems with Anthropic and other AI systems it seems like this is warranted and on point with the rogue nuclear power. It can be used by anyone to potentially develop mass deadly weapons.

https://apnews.com/article/yemen-houthis-anthropic-ai-missiles-9b20934e031ff3d99dd8bb49d85d97a9

[–] heartSagan5@lemmy.zip 8 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

I assume then there is an exception for the military, and it will have no teeth because of that.

People ought to realize the "military industrial complex" is also where they send things like burn pits, which means they don't care much about environmental or physiological issues.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 14 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Now do the same for genociders and their supporters. Lets get back to standing against facsism too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kn0wmad1c@programming.dev 40 points 19 hours ago (31 children)

This is nice and everything, but this whole thing is just a huge marketing push by AI companies. AI is not going to kill us. At least not directly (see point 2).

  1. You need prohibitively expensive equipment to host AI. That equipment needs to be plugged in. If it were truly dangerous, you just need to unplug it.

  2. You need a lot of water to cool the equipment that can run a supposed super intelligence. If we pass regulations about how much of our environment these data centers can destroy, that would curb the abilities of this superintelligence.

  3. AI is fucking dumb. AI is a misnomer since it doesn't actually have any intelligence. It is derivative and cannot perform any necessary tasks that actually drive intelligence. For example, it will be able to tell you every established law in any field of science because it has that information in its corpus, but it will never be able to establish a new law. Or discover anything new in any field.

This whole thing is a push to get people to believe that AI is more capable than it really is so that these companies can draw more money from investors so that 'they'd be able to implement proper safeguards."

load more comments (31 replies)
[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 9 points 14 hours ago

I mean I don't buy any of it but I am still ok with this. It would be sooo fun to pass this law and see how fast they turn from AI doomsayers to AI cynics.

load more comments
view more: next ›