If this is really AGI, like really really, then this will be remembered as the day we all started on the path to building guillotines.
More likely though, it's AGI because they need to hold some claim to differentiate from competitors who are beating them in price and will launch something bigger next month.
We take their claims at face value then we should probably stop them training any more SOTA models til they figure out what they already built is safe or we assume theu are lying to juke the company valuation/keep the money train on the tracks and it turns they in fact were not and just took a sledgehammer to Pandora's box.
I run Qwen 3.8 27B just fine on my Mac mini M4 24GB. I use Unsloth's Q3 XXS with 128k context. It successfully completes long horizon tasks with OpenCode.
This is not a very actionable reply to "well, what will you do when it's crossed?" - how on earth am I supposed to unplug AWS Bedrock and Colossus and OpenAI's own servers?
that's not something you can accomplish just by practicing critical thinking yourself, you'd need to convince a majority of the population to do the same.
we can vent here but it's not gonna change things, a wider cultural shift is needed. and even then I don't see it guaranteeing a "responsible govermment", e.g. see PRC China for example
What position should Canadians or the people of Greenland take with regards to the people in the US military who are currently working to annex and invade their countries?
What position should the US military take with regards to the people in those countries who are currently working to resist those efforts to annex and invade their countries their homelands?
Do you consider Canadian and Icelandic civilians your adversary? If so, how did that come to be?
I can’t speak to what the American military should do in this situation but I’m curious to hear what HN users think the people of Canada and Greenland should do in this situation.
What would the American response to these kinds of actions be if the shoe was on the other foot?
Given the asymmetry in power how should Canada and Greenland respond?
If the American response to Iranian actions against American allies and interest in the Middle East is to spend half their missile stockpile to assassinate the leadership of Iran how should Canada respond to American threats of annexation and Greenland of invasion?
Greenland (Denmark) did respond: by shipping blood bags to Greenland and scheduling military exercises to practise blowing up runways. And they did so in a way that would be noticeable.
The only thing a militarily weaker power can do is signal the clear intent to die defending territory where necessary.
The fact that this actually happened — that an ally felt it necessary — is the shame of the USA, IMO.
In much the same way that I (as a Brit) don't think my fellow countrymen understand the extent to which the British are loathed (especially in America), I don't really think many Americans fully understand who/what America is now, to the rest of the world, or what will be necessary to change that perception.
I'm against the U.S.'s broken leadership as much as any sensible person. But even in normal times with sane leadership, national defense is often a matter of "kill or be killed." This is certainly an uncomfortable truth, but that's the way of the world.
In what "normal" times is a country down to the "kill or be killed" choice? It's only "kill or be killed" if you are under attack by an actual aggressor. When was the last time, say, Canada or New Zealand, felt their national defense choices were "kill or be killed"?
I mean it's not like we know those "adversaries" ever wanted to murder us. For example, the US has a long record of assassinating labor leaders in South America to protect our Banana Republics on behalf of Chiquita. I think it's absolutely fair to bring in skepticism towards the secrets our military keeps from us
In short, yes. They should not be taken seriously. You should take Iranian actions on the ground seriously, and ignore that which is essentially compelled political theatre.
No they shouldn't because "death to" is simply a mistranslation. "Death to" is an idiom in Persian that means approximately "down with"- and in fact the official translation by the Iranian government itself is "Down with the USA". But I'm curious what you thought it meant.
So rather than wanting to kill the USA, they merely want to bring it down? That sounds like a distinction without a difference if you're a military tasked with ensuring that your country continues to exist.
I would say "down with Palantir". That doesn't mean I want every member of that organization dead. In the same way, it's absolutely fine to say down with a state. States/corporations don't have rights. People do.
As I said, if you're a military tasked with ensuring that your country continues to exist. I concede nothing. I doubt you'll find a single loyal military in the world that would be content for its country to fall to some random aggressor. It's the entire point.
I agree that blindly assuming that all "adversaries" of the U.S. (per labeling by the U.S. government) want to kill us. But it does seem that some indeed do. It would further seem that proportionate countermeasures would be appropriate for those cases.
reply