I certainly wish for this to be a productive line of attack against the AI labs, but I'd like to read a more thorough argument showing that it would hold up in court. (It's academic anyway; we'll all be paperclip'd by the time there's a change in administration and a prosecution can be brought and worked through appeals.)

I can't tell if Khan is being realistic when she says laws against “unfair or deceptive [acts]” or “unfair methods of competition” apply to AI labs. Her 2-sentence justifications aren't enough to convince me. But maybe it's sufficient for state AG's who want to start investigations.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49706223

Points: 230

# Comments: 146

Cohere's disagreement seems mostly about who makes the rules. From the essay (which does seem significantly written by AI, sadly):

> The rules around AI are getting written either way. What's still open is whether they get written by a group anyone can join and with evidence anyone can check, or by a handful of companies in a room with the door shut.

Of course none of the AI companies will suggest that they should be accountable for the illegal actions taken by agents they host, but I feel like that could be a very effective "pacing mechanism", and addresses the concerns brought up by this essay about fairness and transparency.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49692118

Points: 48

# Comments: 40

This article is overflowing with links, numbers, and graphs. When a human writes that densely, it takes effort to incorporate all those details. So the human only does that if each detail contributes to their argument. In this article it's mostly irrelevant. It's LLM filler to pad out an article that really has nothing to say beyond its (also LLM-scented) title.

I'll go ahead and make sure you get another copy of that memo: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/steeringtechniqu...

"200 to 400" is from their model of decreasing hood height for existing collisions. But from the article:

> There are two reasons bigger vehicles are deadlier: They have taller hoods. And they tend to have larger blind zones.

It doesn't appear that NYT included in their model the larger blind zones and how that causes more collisions. So they shouldn't have said their 200-400 estimate covers the increase in vehicle "size" when it only models one dimension of size growth.

His doors were unlocked the whole time...

And again, the F-35 is not synonymous with the entire air force.

> California [has] removed qualified immunity for their law enforcement officers at the state level.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#State_law, it's Connecticut, not California, as the third state which limited qualified immunity.

Gwern's evidence that NYT succeeded in their deception campaign is... riled-up internet commentators in the comments section who think vaping is evil. Which doesn't mean much because [pardon my cheekiness here] a) every comments section on every article everywhere on the internet is full of riled-up people, and b) we all know no one reads the article before commenting, therefore these outraged commentators must have developed their opinions without the aid of the NYT.

US IC assessment is Iran is 5-10y away from delivery tech, and there's no imminent threat.

The FBI Director Is MIA - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47813001 (18 days ago)

F.B.I. Director Sues The Atlantic Over Article Claiming Excessive Drinking - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/20/us/politics/kash-patel-at... (15 days ago)

FBI investigating leaks to journalist who wrote explosive article on Kash Patel - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48037332 (8 hours ago)

Devil's advocate: Only productivity gains, not the entire economy, are built on scientific advancement. But wages haven't grown with productivity in half a century, so the loss of scientific advantage won't affect wage growth, therefore the economy will be fine.

(I know it's not convincing, but it's the best I can conjure.)