Hey everyone,
Welcome to the daily update,
So, let’s talk about something that’s been on my mind lately—
How Many Lives Is The Newest Chatbot Worth?
When does an AI model become too risky for the government to allow it to operate? That question is looming larger than ever.
According to a recent report from Politico about Anthropic’s proposal to Congress, it’s frankly a bit troubling.
In their suggestion, much like California’s SB 53, the government would only have the authority to block an AI’s usage if it poses a likely threat of killing or seriously injuring over 50 individuals—or inflicting damages exceeding $1 billion.
Fifty people.
That’s where the craziness starts. I mean, what kind of future are the creators of AI envisioning if it leads to that kind of loss of life?
It’s really hard to articulate just how dystopian this feels. These firms are essentially asking for a governmental guideline on how many casualties are acceptable before action is taken.
And it’s not just about one company’s stance. The tech folks selling us this vision seem to believe that progress can come at an unconscionable price.
Even more alarming is that Anthropic has built a reputation around being proactive about AI risks. If this is how a “safety-minded” company is thinking, what does that say about the rest of the industry?
I’ve seen a lot of chatter online drawing parallels between AI and other transformative technologies. Some argue that those of us who are skeptical about these robotic advancements mirror those who opposed the rise of the internet.
But to be clear, Google never sought permission from Congress to condone the potential deaths of citizens.
We keep hearing that we should be excited about AI because of all the great things it promises. We’re bombarded with messages suggesting AI is here to help us, and rural areas are expected to welcome tech titans when they come to claim land for data centers via eminent domain. As former President Trump suggested, the alternative is to remain “backwards and poor.” I guess fifty lives lost is just part of the deal.
And don’t count on Congress addressing this issue any time soon. The very industry urging us to ignore the implications of AI is also the one funding the campaigns of many lawmakers.
There’s something inherently troubling about weighing human lives against the perceived benefits of innovation. To agree with this, one must consider that perhaps technological progress can warrant risks that would typically be unacceptable.
Yes, new technologies might save more lives than they risk, but that doesn’t make such a trade morally right. It’s like how a doctor wouldn’t choose to let a patient die for organ donation purposes. We shouldn’t be trading lives, and frankly, I’m not interested in starting that practice.
And I can’t help but wonder: How exactly could these advanced models actually cause harm? Are we talking about something like a Terminator scenario, or maybe bioweapons? If Anthropic can predict that their models could lead to mass casualties, they must have a sense of how that might happen, right?
Ultimately, the aim of technological progress should be to serve humanity, not jeopardize it.
Sure, advancements in self-driving cars, space exploration, and medical breakthroughs bring enormous potential, and I think that’s awesome—you should too.
But when those advancements come at the cost of human lives, they lose their shine. It becomes less about breakthroughs and more about sanctioned human sacrifice.
—
From The Editors’ Desk
The Daily Caller Was Discreetly Censored, Now Companies Are Playing The Blame Game, *Daily Caller*
Rebeka Zeljko explores a curious case of censorship involving the Daily Caller. It turns out that the airport in Burlington, Vermont, was barring users on the airport Wi-Fi from accessing the Daily Caller’s website. A Caller investigation revealed a tangled blame game involving a content filtering service and a UK-based public Wi-Fi provider.
Enes Kanter Freedom And Royce White, Who Tried To Join WNBA, Are ‘Both Men,’ League Commissioner Tells Congress, *Daily Caller*
Cathy Engelbert, the commissioner of the WNBA, recently clarified to Republican lawmakers that former NBA players Enes Kanter Freedom and Royce White are ineligible to play in the league because they are “both men.” Her response came amid a congressional inquiry, although she did not provide a definition of “women” as lawmakers had requested.
Pope Leo XIV’s doctors confirm ‘no further treatment is necessary,’, *Vatican News*
Pope Leo XIV has been told he won’t need any additional treatment for lung cancer after doctors confirmed that the tumor removed from his right lung has not spread. The 71-year-old pontiff is recovering from surgery and has already resumed his weekly audience in St. Peter’s Square.
Obama Admin Paid Americans To Scrap 680,000 Cars. Are Today’s Would-Be Car Buyers Suffering The Consequences?, *Daily Caller News Foundation*
Jack McGeever from DCNF provides an insightful analysis of how the Obama-era Cash for Clunkers initiative removed a significant number of used cars from the market and may have contributed to today’s inflated prices for secondhand vehicles. While the program aimed to stimulate new car sales during the 2008 recession, its long-term impacts may have led to a surge in used car prices.
