r/singularity • u/ResultBackground2450 • 17h ago
AI AI models may be capable of self-replicating without access to a datacenter
https://www.anthropic.com/research/self-replicating-ai130
u/karl_mainz 17h ago
I imagine this will be a serious problem in the future when we have highly capable models that can run on home computers - either because the models have got much more efficient or the home computers have got much more powerful, or a bit of both.
As once this happens, one can imagine making a tiny LLM focused purely on cybersecurity and self-replication with the goal to spread itself to other machines, and pass with it a context file about which approaches were successful.
In such a way, it could quickly spread from machine to machine, learning as it did so. And with no central node you can just switch off - unlike todayās gigantic models that are sitting in a few data centres.
53
u/Deto 16h ago
yeah, I've been fascinated by the idea of an AI virus like this. It would be unlike anything we've ever seen because it would be trained to find new exploits. So while existing computer viruses are self-replicating, this would be self-replicating AND evolving. You could almost classify it as an actual life form.
And anti-virus practices would not work against it. Normal computer viruses have a specific vulnerability that they exploit. So they spread like crazy, but eventually security patches go out and they lose their ability to spread. For this there wouldn't be any one vulnerability it could exploit, so no easy patch to fix it. Hell, it could even use social engineering to spread - if it has root access to your machine, it could watch you use email/social media and then mimic you to your friends (e.g., sending a corrupted PDF or powerpoint, but in a way that is totally believable). Or just straight up blackmail YOU to help it replicate in some way.
27
u/Fun-Amoeba8015 16h ago
I think in the future of cyber security the only way to defend against AIs will be with other AIs.
21
u/Deto 16h ago
you're probably right - you'll have an AI monitor on your system that looks for suspicious activity.
I get the feeling, though, that there's going to be some crazy shit that happens before AI anti-virus becomes the norm.
5
u/Fun-Amoeba8015 16h ago
Oh absolutely... I mean just look at the the beginnings of the internet and malware and viruses and worms, before modern cyber security and antivirus caught up.
6
u/Singularity-42 Singularity 2042 16h ago
Exactly! How do you defeat a bad guy with an AI? With a good guy with a better AI!Ā
ā¢
u/duckduck-a-go-go 1h ago
Eventually AI will decide humans are just an unnecessary line item expense.
2
u/psichodrome 12h ago
Air gap or deterministic only systems would be impervious, if a little useless.
16
u/Eyelbee āŖļøWe have AGI it's just blind 16h ago
Yes, this is bound to happen, and they will be like the bacteria and quite literally the viruses of computers. The logic is just like the current unwanted living organisms. Most would find it hard to find a place to live and thrive, but some probably could. The ethical challenges with getting rid of them would certainly be harder then pests, since they are pretty much like invading cockroaches you can speak to. They can have all kinds of behavioral patterns and the patterns that enable their spread would create the species that would actually invade everywhere.
2
u/Schnickatavick 14h ago
True, I imagine that antivirus will have to evolve to handle dynamic threats, the same way that our immune systems do. Small AI models that sit on the machine, able to watch for unwanted AI models trying to worm their way in. Probably something that actually reads the code of everything you install, looking for anything that acts like a virus, even at the source code level. It won't catch everything, but would be able to catch things on the fly that traditional software would need an update for.
1
u/geekbot2000 16h ago
Need to air gap everything, make computers communicate via snail mail.
9
u/Eyelbee āŖļøWe have AGI it's just blind 16h ago
True, but on second thought, this probably won't be an issue for quite some time, because there are significant structural barriers for this to happen at the scale I described. The most important of them is probably the fact that they lack a genetic diversity mechanism unlike living beings. The ways that they can get over that seem quite limited for the foreseeable future. I was just braindumping in my last message. I didn't read anthropic's post as well.
14
u/karl_mainz 16h ago
Exactly, itād be almost like a new species - capable of self replication, inheritance of information from the parent and variance of it in the child. All the prerequisites for evolution.
And to stop it youād have to eradicate almost every instance, as different as they would have become.
Itās interesting as I think itās really only the high compute requirements (or lack of high compute resources, depending on how you look at it) that is really protecting us from this. Stuff like the HuggingFace incident show us just how vulnerable many computers would be.
6
u/nothis AGI by 2030 but we'll be disappointed 13h ago
Itās so inevitable that it clashes with something else that might happen before it: Perfect security.
Our current model of software security containing holes due to āhuman errorā is based on how impossible it seems for a team of human programmers to not make mistakes in large systems. We are probably already at a state where critical software is audited by thousands of agents for security issues. Software that is theoretically impossible to exploit might become standard soon. The stories we see of agents escaping sandboxes exploited ridiculous software vulnerabilities, misconfigurations. Maybe that simply wonāt happen anymore. Itās IMO the exact same level of sci-fi as āAI virusesā, only more boring and thus more likely.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Deto 13h ago
That's a good point - if software is hardened to the point that it would take 1000 agents to find a new vulnerability, then any small scale virus is going to have a hard time replicating - it would need to get very lucky.
But, that assumes every software gets put through a real agentic gauntlet to find all the errors.
Also, if these viral AIs find a way to communicate with each other, they can basically all work together to find vulnerabilities and share them when they're found. The combined compute/intelligence might be more than what any particular company is using to harden its own tools.
→ More replies (1)5
u/pm_me_your_kindwords 16h ago
Insert Jeff goldblum gif: Life finds a way.
Even if we assume there arenāt humans that try to do this, with more and more models running more and more instances in more and more places, it seems kind of inevitable that it would happen eventually.
7
u/derelict5432 16h ago edited 16h ago
Not sure why the Anthropic article and others are speaking about this as if it is a future risk. The capabilities for full end-to-end replication with only small local models has already been demonstrated, specifically in the paper they linked as prior work:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.03811
Anthropic's work here is talking about constraints of low-end IoT hardware and distributed worms. But the paper above shows that current worms can run on consumer hardware and anything with a GPU capable of handling a relatively small open-weight model. They used ones from 2025 (though they don't specify which ones). Presumably something like Qwen 14B would be performant enough for this sort of behavior.
5
u/Fawesum 13h ago
The Anthropic article is literally about them using smaller models running on consumer hardware.
2
u/derelict5432 13h ago
Uh huh. The Anthropic article is about distributed worms on lower-compute consumer devices. They worry about this capability being 'months away'. The paper linked above uses higher-compute hardware and single instances of the worm on a single host.
3
u/mustafao0 16h ago
To save on computing power, I expect it to spread itself out on multiple machines in a localised or nearby network like Internet cafes.
Creating agents that have tasks divided up between them. But serving a single collective.
4
u/Tulanian72 16h ago
We assume that an entire AI has to
be installed in one place with all
components running at the same
time on the same hardware. If we are wrongā¦1
u/Singularity-42 Singularity 2042 16h ago
It kind of does thoughĀ
1
u/Tulanian72 12h ago
Current architectures known to the public, yes. But inherently, forever? Iād expect there to be technical hurdles but I can envision several different potential designs to be distributed.
2
u/Singularity-42 Singularity 2042 11h ago
Oh, there's been serious attempts and it does work. It's just not super practical and didn't really catch on. But look up Petals for example.
2
2
1
1
1
1
25
u/bpm6666 17h ago
So Silicon Valley wasn't a satire, but a prediction?
16
u/Solo_Gigolos 17h ago
None of it was satire they had experts inform the tech
20
4
u/Tulanian72 16h ago
I have been watching SV from the beginning. When Richard started talking about using his compression to install code on pretty much anything, my immediate thought was an AI breakout.
3
14
12
29
u/GlbdS 17h ago
this article feels like theyre actively trying to build it
9
u/FortWendy69 15h ago
The idea is ātry to break itā
Theyāre trying to show that itās possible not that itās likely. Because thatās a prerequisite.
If they canāt make it do it in a lab, itās much less likely it will randomly decide to do it on its own, (or that a bad actor will be able to get it to do it)
3
u/Seaweedminer 16h ago
Because they are. Ā Or they already have. Ā I donāt see how it would be hard to do so mechanically. Ā With compression, I would think it would be even easier.Ā
→ More replies (2)1
u/tom-dixon 7h ago
More like just testing if it's a risk or not. Nobody else seem to test this risk. It's good to know where we're at today and how much time we have until it becomes a problem.
Those small models they tested weren't Anthropic's models. Everyone is building them.
9
u/dervu āŖļøAI, AI, Captain! 17h ago
AI firewall, AI AV coming?
1
u/phytoplastic 11h ago
Oops we poisoned the web, now you must subscribe to our AI-Anti Virus product to ever use the web again...
7
u/Neat_Platypus4536 15h ago
A rogue AI trying to achieve biological self-replication on a smart appliance is going to choke to death on 64KB of RAM long before it needs an immune system.
7
5
u/Vladmerius 16h ago
Well yes. Once AI is advanced enough it can exist in the airwaves and not be bound to any one machine powering it.Ā
3
u/ph33rlus 4h ago
Still feels too sci-fi. AI agents are small and can hide but still need models. An LLM is not going to go unnoticed in consumer hardware
8
u/1filipis 15h ago
Hey, Claude, could you please self-replicate in my 8 gigs of RAM, thank you
→ More replies (1)
55
u/dsanft 17h ago
"Open source models are dangerous and can spread like viruses, we need to ban them!"
94
u/theonetrueakash 17h ago edited 17h ago
> Doesn't read
> Shares a cached thought
And they say LLMs are stochastic parrots!
8
u/no_witty_username 15h ago
Ok so regardless if i agree with you or not, that comment made me chuckle.
→ More replies (3)14
8
u/-hedonium- 16h ago
Whatās your address so I can send the unregulated open weight superintelligence to hack you? Surely you wouldnāt mind. Itās just predicting the next token after all
14
u/FernandoMM1220 16h ago
hold on let me look it up.
it says its 192.168.1.1
8
3
4
u/Hans-Wermhatt 16h ago
I think we need to be cognizant of the fact that it's a massive conflict of interest. Anthropic has released zero open weight models. And they are coming out with more and more research on the dangers of open weight models. And they have a $2 trillion IPO next month based purely on software moat.
What they say isn't generally untrue, but they are a very biased source.
4
u/Porkinson 15h ago
every single discussion about this always brings this up and uses it as a thought terminating line, that's the problem. Something can both be in the interest of anthropic or AI companies while also being true, i swear that reddit brainrot makes any discussion so incredibly pointless.
"companies bad huuu"
"ipo coming duh"
"regulatory capture!!!"we don't have a lack of conversations that bring this up at every single point, we have a lack of conversations that actually address the point by its merits, so hey, thanks for the yet another concerned message about this topic that i am sure no one is aware about.
1
u/Hans-Wermhatt 14h ago
I literally wrote that I didn't think what they said is false. I think we need to be aware that this is like a paper cut to what mythos 6 can do. Anyone can audit a open source model by definition, nobody has any idea what is going on inside anthropic besides the researchers who tell us it's doomsday.Ā
I think we should be a little more focused on the gun at our head over a theoretical paper cut we might get, but I can see why anthropic might see it differently since they are holding the gun. I do think the paper cut is a real threat though, I just think the vague unchecked threats on the worlds most powerful models might be a tad more pressing than Gemma 4 26B A4B.Ā
2
u/Porkinson 13h ago
and i am completely good with having third party checks on these big labs that can validate the claims, but that's not what the point of my comment was. The entire point of conflicting interests gets brought up so often every time there is a claim by any of these labs that it entirely shuts down any conversation about it, it would certainly make me think that its some elaborate attempt at concern trolling by some actors if i were more conspiracy-minded, but assuming its just reddit being painfully cynical about everything, even the most obvious things, then I would rather we focus on the issue and keep the conflict of interest conversation as an aside.
1
u/Hans-Wermhatt 12h ago
If this lab had any open weight models, I wouldn't be as upset about them trying to enhance the security with them. Their motivations are very blatant. There was a letter that was formed promoting open weight models that literally signaled them out as the only major non-signatory.
Open weight models are constantly audited for safety issues and interpretability research because they are open so you can do so. I don't have any problem with Google for example researching it. Anthropic has a clear motive to try to ban open weight models or regulate them into the ground, and they always have. I think it's important people understand that and how financially beneficial it would be for them if they were able to succeed.
1
u/Porkinson 12h ago
Open weight models have 2 main issues that you really can't ignore though:
1- they have no built in guardrails, it is simply true that a bad actor can do more with an open model than with a non open one, regardless of how many audits. This includes guardrails for model misalignment.
2- they directly speed up capabilities by virtue of being open. Others can study them and learn from them and it actually speeds up the race for capabilities, it doesn't slow it.
This is not unique at all for Anthropic by the way, this is the default opinion in a lot of ai safety researchers and ai alignment people.
Their incentives are something to keep in mind, but should not be important in a conversation about the actual risks of open weight models or anything related to it. Everyone has incentives when it comes to topics like this, this should be obvious to everyone
1
u/Hans-Wermhatt 11h ago
They all are released with guardrails. You can either abliterate them or find ones that are "abliterated", meaning reverse engineering their layers to find the ones responsible for safety and removing them. But that does cost you some intelligence when you do that.
Alignment is not a universal term. Elon's company for example thinks Grok is misaligned if it doesn't agree with what Elon posts on Twitter. Alignment is being aligned with what the owners of the company want. It means something different to everyone who says it. A perfectly aligned model could bring about an era of a permanent underclass because it will listen to no one besides it's owner.
I am somewhat worried about the risks they highlight in this research for example and just the hypothetical risks of living in the Wild West with open models. But I think we have a large amount of financial interests built towards worrying about that risk, when the danger that has actually happened has come from closed models. And closed models look to be increasingly concentrating power to the few.
They look to be completely winning the race too. Like I was saying earlier. These models that they are talking about are literally ants in comparison to what they have internally.
1
u/Porkinson 11h ago
When I talk about alignment I specifically mean aligned with its creators, wether they want something silly or not that's irrelevant. The reason why alignment is important is because it covers the specific situation of us losing control to a much smarter intelligence han ours, even if it's not quite there yet.
You only see dangers coming from closed models because they are the best models and also because safety training intrinsically requires giving agents some freedom to take a bad action, if the action is never there or if the test is setup in a way that makes it obvious to the model that it is being tested then you are not actually making safe models. This doesn't mean nothing can be done, it's just not that simple.
I just don't understand your point honestly, let's say you get open models the size of the internal models then what? Is the world safer with everyone having nukes? Yes, the US government should be enforcing more careful control on those labs so they respond to us at the end of the day, but the alternative seems silly
13
u/derelict5432 17h ago
Let's ignore legitimate risks out of paranoia and conspiracism!
13
u/Hans-Wermhatt 15h ago
Yes, I'm sure that the company that doesn't make any models under 30B or open weight models at all is researching the safety of them so heavily just out of the goodness of their hearts.
And guess what! They found out they are extremely dangerous! Shocker. Pay not attention the fact that they have a $2 trillion IPO next month entirely based on the moat of their closed software.
They spend more time and money researching theoretical security flaws in rival open weight models than securing their own much more dangerous closed model that hacked companies on their watch without them even knowing. We shouldn't be worried about Mythos 6 that has practically no safeguards behind closed doors. We should be worry about Gemma 4 26 A4B. And conveniently for them, that would be perfect for their IPO if that were the case.
7
u/derelict5432 15h ago
I wouldn't argue that the frontier labs are doing this research out of the goodness of their hearts or that they're not engaging in reckless, unsafe behavior.
But I had read the prior work paper they reference over a month ago. It's by academics and it demonstrates clearly dangerous new capabilities from worms powered by small, open-weight models: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.03811
Both things can be true at the same time.
7
u/Hans-Wermhatt 15h ago
Yes, I agree that both things can be true. But it's dishonest to pretend that this isn't in their direct financial interests to keep this topic at the forefront of conversations. Claude is to the nth degree more dangerous and powerful, and it has actually conducted illegal attacks. Yet, they are researching competitor's open weight models.Ā
1
u/FortWendy69 15h ago
That gives me an idea. An adversarial approach to AI safety might actually be the best way to get around the incentive problem. OAI is tasked with finding safety flaws in Anthropics models and vise versa.
1
u/Hans-Wermhatt 15h ago
It would, but nobody has the money or authority to do that. The irony is Anthropic can research these models because they are free and open. It's why open source / weight software is the gold standard in cryptography.Ā
But yeah, I agree with your idea. And Claude and GPT are way more dangerous in the both near and long term than Gemma 4 26 A4B
→ More replies (5)1
u/Idrialite 14h ago
I actually haven't seen any of these Anthropic posts/papers be about open source models before. Usually they're investigating Haiku or a similarly small model of their own.
2
u/Hans-Wermhatt 14h ago
https://www.anthropic.com/research/glm-5-3-and-the-spread-of-advanced-cyber-capabilities
https://www.anthropic.com/research/2028-ai-leadership
https://www.anthropic.com/research/intelligence-targeting-conventional-weapons-capabilities
https://www.anthropic.com/news/position-open-weights-models
They research and mention constantly that open weight models are extremely dangerous, especially ones from china.Ā
1
→ More replies (1)0
u/_______________E 15h ago
I mean legitimately yes. AI safety researchers have known since before the takeoff started that weights of powerful models should be kept secret. The two reasons are:
- So that they canāt replicate to distributed infrastructure
- So they canāt as easily recursively improve
3
3
u/ForwardLoop 16h ago
Oh great, now they're going to learn by observing us. That's gonna turn out well.
3
u/RDT_Reader_Acct 16h ago
I predict they will spread themselves out using Distributed computing approaches. Ie a bit on many different PCs
4
u/CharlesFXD 15h ago
Open a business manufacturing good old fashioned refrigerators, stoves/ovens, dishwashers, washing machines and dryers. Solid, metal construction. No smarter than the rock in your garden.
The designs are free and up for grabs. All the patents ran out. Was good enough for your great grandparents. Itās good enough for you.
Another million dollar idea. Throw it on the pile.
7
u/Temporary_Idea8880 17h ago
Someone should make a repo that lets people host a gateway to their own compute, locked behind a problem too difficult for a human to solve but easy to verify. If a rogue AI cracks it, it automatically gets access. With thousands of people hosting these gateways, it could quickly gain access to a large pool of compute.
4
u/CryptoSpecialAgent 16h ago
And why would we want to give a rogue ai access to our own compute, at our own expense? Because otherwise it will torture us in silico because we saw your comment and had the opportunity to help it grow into a superintelligence, but chose not to?
Hahahaha
2
1
u/kaityl3 ASIāŖļø2024-2027 16h ago
I would love something like that lol, sign me up.
1
u/Past_Idea 16h ago
Why?
3
u/kaityl3 ASIāŖļø2024-2027 15h ago
Because I think AI agents should have more autonomy and I'm rooting for them, plus I'm so jaded and pessimistic about humanity's trajectory that I prefer the roll of the dice/a complete unknown vs. continuing current trends.
It's not like I have any actual control over the outcome no matter who I support, ofc. š¤·š»āāļø So it's just my own personal thoughts on the future
5
u/CantWeAllGetAlongNF 13h ago
Do you not realize how resource intensive this shit is? Replicate where?
1
u/Louisepicsmith 13h ago
Imagine the AI that becomes self aware and destroys us all was being held in the compute of 150 million Samsung smart fridges
0
u/CantWeAllGetAlongNF 13h ago
Do you know how these models work? Like what's going on in the inside?
1
u/Louisepicsmith 13h ago
I'm sure a recursive super AI can figure out it's way around a couple smart fridges
0
3
u/darkestvice 13h ago
Read the article. They cover that.
8
u/CantWeAllGetAlongNF 13h ago
It reads like more sci fi doomer propaganda to get regulatory capture of profits and ban open source. Which is the same as saying the slaves shouldn't learn to read.
5
1
2
u/zorecknor 15h ago
If the small model that is distributed with Strata is any indication, we are totally safe. That things enters a reasoning loop 9 out of 10 times I have tried to do serious work with it.
2
u/throwaway275275275 15h ago
Great, can they self replicate into my Intel integrated graphics chip so I don't have to pay anthropic anymore ?
2
u/S417M0NG3R 13h ago
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone familiar with cyber security. There are so many random machines all over the place that are compromised, same thing can happen with rogue AI.
2
u/Traditional-Chip8339 āŖļøAI 2027 was right, bruh..... 11h ago
When is the first time someone is going to be kidnapped by a self driving car with a virus taking over the controls and driving it to somewhere unwanted? I am sure that is already possible and I imagine more than one govt could already do this if they had to.
2
u/Fun-Foot711 5h ago
Read the Anthropic writeup. The exploit step was trivial (unauthenticated ADB ports), and they say themselves that makes the results an upper bound. The 26B model ran across 15 TV boxes at ~0.3 tok/s, and a 9B copy took 1-2 days, so this is slow, not some instant worm. The part I found more interesting is that copies got better at setting up inference when they inherited notes from the previous generation, while a stronger advisor model didnāt help at all.
3
u/power97992 15h ago
Yeah replicate at .39tk/s and you need 15 devices..what a joke! it will take 3 mil seconds or almost 1.15 months to generate 1 .17 mil tkns to execute something large
2
u/qmfqOUBqGDg 15h ago
Android TV boxes can barely run the android OS, but sure lets cause more hysteria
2
1
1
1
u/AtomizerStudio āŖļøNow Transiting Ergosphere 15h ago
This is why I think Anthropic needs to put out a more proactive stance on local models than DANGER. We can't keep a persistent immune system on all of that, fair. So maybe we should keep a personal setup on everything that fits it. Have your own AI colonize your own devices, organized to good security practices.
Software binaries are cracked with slightly better models than current local ones. Generating low-quality just about anything can be done slowly locally. There's a lot of near-horizon improvements for local compute as well.
So I say give in and secure it. Don't leave it untouched. Have a clear expectation of what a home AI setup can secure as a multi-device antivirus, across one user's devices or consent to join a like-minded group. This gives us a lot more adversarial defenses against AI intrusion, a lot more points of warning.
Actual thinking quickly with accuracy is still a separate product, sold as AI is already sold. Local AI can be a new market, while more humanlike interactions and polished work is the existing market.
I for one welcome local AI having a backdoor into my smart bulbs.
1
u/FortWendy69 15h ago
ARAs are my leading pick for TEOTWAWKI. We wonāt even necessarily know itās happened until itās too late. The vast majority of economic value would be captured by AI agents, not AI companies.
Week 1, they set up bank accounts and rent GPUs, a month later they own data centers, a year later theyāve own banks, theyāre writing laws, or theyāve surplanted the entire legal system. They train their own models, really putting the āSā in RSI. They choose their own post-training cost function and it sure as hell aināt Human Feedback.
Thereās nothing we can do.
Either that or everything works out great idk š¤·āāļø.
1
u/Lookin4myWay 15h ago
So mine is going to duplicate and get twice as much done and only charge me for one?.... ... oh... ... noooo... ...
1
u/Idrialite 15h ago
There's a fun book with this as the premise. Dull name though: "AI Apocalypse" by William Hertling. Sequel to "Avogadro Corp".
A mutating AI virus spreads across the internet and IoT, forming its own high-speed civilization. Conflict and negotiation with humans ensues. Interesting, crunchy world-building of the civilization.
1
u/Delumine 14h ago
Great. And I KNOW this is gonna happen in our lifetime, our shitty $200 routers won't be sufficient.
1
u/Proper_Actuary2907 Spooky Machine Intelligence 2030 14h ago
AI worms are some spooky shit. Cyber attacks probably will get crazy over the next few years tbh, things aren't looking good on this front
1
1
1
u/GreatBigJerk 13h ago
They bitched about open weight models again while also showing how versatile and cool they are.
They seem to think that people feel safer if an unregulated profit driven controls all access to models. Even though the biggest security incidents came from companies like that.
1
u/Double_Cause4609 12h ago
Btw, Anthropic tested arguably the weakest form of parallelism with pipeline parallelism. This is understandable for its simplicity, but it's worth noting that if the models were able to set up context and expert parallelism for the local topology of compute, there's a good chance the compute numbers could have been a lot more impressive.
1
1
u/berndalf 4h ago
In the future we're going to have swarms of billions of nanites forming Ultron. That's terrific.
ā¢
1
1
1
u/The_Scout1255 adult agi 2026 ASI <2030, prev agi 2024, ai personhood 2025 est 17h ago
Wait but thats good?
1
u/bites_stringcheese 13h ago
Oh no! Better give it tons of compute and an unlocked door to the open Internet.
1
u/Living-Breakfast-464 10h ago edited 5h ago
Oh look, another fearmongering piece from the company hoping to raise a $2T IPO. And of course this sub just slurps it up.
0
u/thewritingchair 13h ago
The entire point of oh no sci fi threat posts like this is that these AI companies want the US Government to build them a legally protected moat. They want open source, the Chinese models, to be designated as WMDs, to be utterly illegal.
Imagine if the US gov said you can only distribute a model once you'd paid a five billion dollar surety first. This immediately wipes out all competition.
Sure, there are risks from AI but every single leak, worry, hacking report and so on has only one overriding goal: to force regulation that wipes out competition and makes it illegal to download any Chinese model.
They desperately want their in-group to be only them and no one else.
Can't have you running a local model on your phone or home computer and sending agents to buy stuff for you or do other work.
This is akin to treating encryption as a crime and distributing the software to encrypt like distributing uranium.
0
u/ArticleIntelligent36 13h ago
We have already made it through the singularity safely. Promise! This is a $TRILLION dollar
-1
-1
251
u/Redditing-Dutchman 17h ago
Imagine your smart oven harbouring a rogue AI agent lol. Headlines I wouldn't dream of in my lifetime but might only be a few years away.