> What’s the most dangerous thing that’s happened with an LLM so far?
That it's built solely on "trust me, bro"?
> right now I am not concerned at all.
You should be. There's no scenario where this ends well: if AI labs succeed, we all will loose our jobs. If they fail, then the bubble bursts. Economic crisis is inevitable either way, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
> 14.5. Class Action Waiver.
> YOU AND THE SONY ENTITY WITH WHICH YOU HAVE A DISPUTE AGREE THAT ARBITRATION WILL BE CONDUCTED ONLY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND NOT IN A CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION [...]
> Regardless, these sorts of things have been fought before, over and over.
I'm no lawyer, but IMHO they probably will reply that Sony has indeed violated CA. AB 2426 (effective since 01-jan-2025) and that Sony illegally tried to restrict customer rights in the first place, as per McGill v. Citibank https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2017/s...
No AI companies were able to make profit so far, and unemployed masses surely won't buy expensive ChatGPT subscriptions.
Will AI labs make profit from AI using companies? Hardly, unemployed masses can't and won't buy their products either, therefore they won't be able to afford even more expensive ChatGPT Enterprise subscriptions. (For crying out loud, even big corps like Uber can't pay all their AI bills.)
And if AI labs have no profits, how are they supposed to pay the hyperscalers for computing capacity? They will run out of investor money pretty soon.
And if hyperscalers can't rent out their data centers to AI labs, how are they supposed to pay for the electricity (gas/diesel/etc.) and water bills and repay their already enormous debts?
I honestly don't see how replacing all workers with AI could be profitable at all.
A few are deciding to take a massive, extremely risky bet on behalf of the entire world population. And of course they are the ones insulated from any potential disaster
Meta is planning to use their own AI to replace their workers. They are spending hundreds of billions of datacenters. If they cut 30,000 workers thats around 15 billion a year in savings. Once their own workers are replaced they plan to sell their AI agents to small businesses for use on their platforms.
> I'm not sure its really correct to call UEFI programs bare metal.
I think you can. UEFI is a firmware which comes with the hardware, stored on the motherboard. It's there and automatically runs when you turn on your machine.
It's okay to consider the firmware part of the "bare metal", IMHO.
> It's okay to consider the firmware part of the "bare metal", IMHO.
On a PC I would think so. Using UEFI is not much less bare metal as using BIOS calls, at least. OTOH on an embedded device it would already sound so much less bare metal... I find it's a tricky question.
> no, you can also call ntdll (or even syscalls although those aren't stable), there's plenty of documentation on the internet
I mean officially. Yes, you can find some on the internet, but nothing on the official MSDN.
> but also why would you, not much point except for very niche functionality
Exactly. Using system DLL API is backward and forward compatible, and just as standardized and well-documented as the POSIX API. I see no problem relying on it.
(Sidenote: as a bonus, MSDN is surprisingly good, understandable, well organized, lots of examples. I rarely say this, but well done MS, that's how a dev doc should be.)
I still don't get it, what's wrong with using the user32 and kernel32 APIs? It's stable, well-documented, and is the official API on Windows. So why not use it?
Yeah, but the link talks about `ZwMapViewOfSection`. From that page:
> For calls from kernel-mode drivers, the NtXxx and ZwXxx versions of a Windows Native System Services routine can behave differently in the way that they handle and interpret input parameters.
How "differently" exactly? That's undocumented. And lots of other small (but very important) details are undocumented as well.
But you're wrong, although not for the reasons you think (suggested by your examples).
> I don’t think ai models come close to nuclear weapons
Unless AI models are controlling the drones/icbms carrying those. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/18/autonomou...
> or to run-of-the-mill, everyday carbon emissions
Unless AI models are responsible for those said emissions. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/amazon-funds-big...
> What’s the most dangerous thing that’s happened with an LLM so far?
That it's built solely on "trust me, bro"?
> right now I am not concerned at all.
You should be. There's no scenario where this ends well: if AI labs succeed, we all will loose our jobs. If they fail, then the bubble bursts. Economic crisis is inevitable either way, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
reply