The BBC article is from 2014 and mentions Musk - In the longer term, the technology entrepreneur Elon Musk has warned that AI is "our biggest existential threat".
Maybe some of the other stuff you said is true, but as long you're peppering in something that I know for a fact to be false, then it's just noise. You, shooter, and hickory are now in the same club where you're not to be believed.
I know what he says. I also know that his own Grok has called him a hypocrite.
He signed an open letter a few years ago calling for a temporary pause in AI development pending further safety reviews, but continued to aggressively fund and develop his own AI company, xAI. At the same time he was poaching talent from competitors.
He’s all about competitive positioning. Even one of your sources alludes to that. Tech execs have accused him of using regulation to build a protective moat. Establishing strict safety requirements can impose huge compliance costs on companies that don’t have the capital that Musk enjoys. Also, forcing the industry to pause or strictly regulate development can buy time for his own ventures—such as Tesla's AI infrastructure and his AI firm, xAI.
Finally, Musk is facing whistleblower allegations that raising red flags about xAI deliberately stripping off guardrails to move faster leads to employee termination.
His commitment to safety and regulation is questionable, despite what comes out of his mouth.
You’re free to “stop paying attention” to me, which you say is your intent, but I doubt that you will.
Maybe wanting balanced budgets, paying off federal debt, free trade / no stupid tariffs, only LEGAL immigration, reforming Social Security with personal investment options and raising the contributions cap, no endless wars, our military not being policeman of the world, no men playing women's sports, an evil axis of Purdue plus Kentucky plus Duke.
I can agree with everyone of those points. The problem is that you sure don't give the impression with your posting that you support those things. Seems like you make your opinion of something based on your dislike of Trump. I don't like Trump either but if he comes out supporting something that I like I'm still gonna support it even if he does.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who know binary and those who don't.
@shooter I’m not sure we want to add people to this country. Time for subtraction
We are in agreement there. The reasons are different than MAGA harped on, though. Immigrant crime is very very low compared to US citizens, but MAGA hammers on every one-off anecdote. Then they pardon the white guys doing 10x worse.
What about illegal immigrant crime? Did you leave out the illegal qualifier on purpose? It’s not just about crime, go learn something about the economic impacts of illegals. Do you deny that they’ve scammed billions?
@dbmhoosier ehhh they are just rage baiting. They know he doesn’t have liquid assets to tax. People (not politicians) think it’s like having cash. People are generally ignorant.
The crazy progressive wing wants to tax wealth. This idea has failed in many countries that have tried it but failure in practice doesn't deter that group.
The BBC article is from 2014 and mentions Musk - In the longer term, the technology entrepreneur Elon Musk has warned that AI is "our biggest existential threat".
Maybe some of the other stuff you said is true, but as long you're peppering in something that I know for a fact to be false, then it's just noise. You, shooter, and hickory are now in the same club where you're not to be believed.
I know what he says. I also know that his own Grok has called him a hypocrite.
He signed an open letter a few years ago calling for a temporary pause in AI development pending further safety reviews, but continued to aggressively fund and develop his own AI company, xAI. At the same time he was poaching talent from competitors.
He’s all about competitive positioning. Even one of your sources alludes to that. Tech execs have accused him of using regulation to build a protective moat. Establishing strict safety requirements can impose huge compliance costs on companies that don’t have the capital that Musk enjoys. Also, forcing the industry to pause or strictly regulate development can buy time for his own ventures—such as Tesla's AI infrastructure and his AI firm, xAI.
Finally, Musk is facing whistleblower allegations that raising red flags about xAI deliberately stripping off guardrails to move faster leads to employee termination.
His commitment to safety and regulation is questionable, despite what comes out of his mouth.
You’re free to “stop paying attention” to me, which you say is your intent, but I doubt that you will.
You are criticizing large AI companies calling for a federal regulatory framework as building a regulatory moat (Dario is a worse offender of this than Elon btw). And fair enough, that is true, large companies are better positioned to meet those regulations.
Yet you also criticize them for being reckless and not committed to safety.
This is a tension in no way unique to Elon, but you frame it that way because you’re a shill with an axe to grind.
The cats out of the bag. Someone will create AI equivalents to the atom bomb and someone will create AI equivalents to nuclear energy.
Just hope that in all cases it’s an American model being used with American private and public oversight.
This post was modified 19 hours ago 3 times by CarRamRod
He has unfathomable wealth. He's in a position to do enormous good, but his history suggests that's unlikely. His giving relative to his net worth has been low. His charitable foundation has frequently failed to distribute the minimum 5% of its assets as required by US tax law. When he does donate, it tends to be causes linked to his own companies. He says he's skeptical of philanthropy, arguing that his own commercial ventures (SpaceX ensures the survival of humanity, he says, while seemingly unconcerned about the existential threat posed by AI, into which he has poured tens of billions of dollars) function as philanthropic endeavors.
It was obvious at the time that they were risking our data. There was nothing conservative about the failed DOGE experiment.
Meanwhile the federal government has been hiring 10s of thousands of federal employees to replace those that were fired without any analysis of whether they were needed or not. Talk about boondoggles - I know some GS14 and 15 level federal employees who took the early separation option and spent six months at full pay doing NOTHING related to work, or whatever they wanted to do while laughing on their way to the bank, and at the same time the government ended up having to hire their replacements because their jobs weren't expendable (few at that level are) so the federal government effectively paid two people for one job for several months. Make that make sense.
This post was modified 19 hours ago 2 times by Aloha Hoosier
@dbmhoosier ehhh they are just rage baiting. They know he doesn’t have liquid assets to tax. People (not politicians) think it’s like having cash. People are generally ignorant.
The crazy progressive wing wants to tax wealth. This idea has failed in many countries that have tried it but failure in practice doesn't deter that group.
No one will convince me that the magnitude of the wealth disparity we're seeing today isn't a problem. The 19th century Progressives (Republicans) recognized it as well with the Gilded Age Robber Barons. I have no idea what might be a solution, or even if a solution is possible without blowing everything up.
That said, taxing wealth isn't some new Kommie inspired scheme. We tax wealth held real property, based on its current assessed valuation. No reason other forms of wealth held in stocks or debt or whatever couldn't be treated similarly, but I'm not convinced any such proposal would be implemented properly, regardless of which political party were to try it.
I'm not going to be around to see the fallout. All I'm doing for now is looking forward to the massive Social Security COLA that I'll be getting thanks to the Trump inflation. Thanks Donny.
It was obvious at the time that they were risking our data. There was nothing conservative about the failed DOGE experiment.
Meanwhile the federal government has been hiring 10s of thousands of federal employees to replace those that were fired without any analysis of whether they were needed or not. Talk about boondoggles - I know some GS14 and 15 level federal employees who took the early separation option and spent six months at full pay doing NOTHING related to work, or whatever they wanted to do while laughing on their way to the bank, and at the same time the government ended up having to hire their replacements because their jobs weren't expendable (few at that level are) so the federal government effectively paid two people for one job for several months. Make that make sense.
350k roles cut and maybe 35k roles refilled. On balance I’d call that a win.
DOGE “failed” for a few reasons. None of which you touched on (unsurprisingly).
1. An 18-month runway was never going to be enough. This needed to be an effort carried on across an entire administration; several administrations actually.
2. Trump balked, like he did on mass deportations. Public heat go to him.
3. Trump and congress had no appetite to pass necessary recision packages.
Despite this it wasn’t a complete failure. Many DOGE staffers are now in full time appointed roles throughout the federal government, continuing the mission. They scored some massive political wins, USAID is effectively dead, 100’s of DEI contracts and nonsense education grants canceled. It severely crippled the leftist power base within the federal government
