Leaderboard

Rode into Hobart this morning to check out the vintage motorbike show in Princes Wharf #1. ( @nomadpete- on til 4pm if you want to see it, $5 entry, free parking for bikes on the forecourt). Heaps of lovely old bikes including a 1951 Vincent Black Lightning in original condition which apparently went for $1.3m at auction.

A mate had a Mini Moke Californian with inentical speedo. I remember the day well. I had my left leg in plaster from a bike accident so it was stuck out the side. To say I felt a bit vulnerable would be an understatement. He wound it out til the needle was on the Full mark on the fuel gauge. Then a XJ Jag breezed past us like we were standing still! Sorry for the thread drift, but the Pic of a rusty old speedo lit up ma mrmory cell.

Young pup! Nobody expected a car to last 100,000 so there was no need for a bigger odometer. I had a friend who took a photo of his Holden odo rolling over to zero - but the car was on it's second engine.

I read Albo is promoting a nuclear non proliferation type agreement for AI development between USA and China at the UN.. Hmm not long after it was suggested here. Is Albo getting his policy ideas from these great fora? 🙂 The above is really interesting and tech bros wouldn't be the first and won't be the last to buy favourable regulatory treatment. It isn't right or fair, but that is life. Interestingly, from a legal perspective, at least in Aus and UK, the calling by the owners/controllers of AI for moderation or slowing of AI due to its potential dangers can be seen as admission of holding something dangerous and could well backfire. And if it escapes and causes harm by those who own it or have control over it (and saying it has got that dangerous or evolved so they lost control is no defence), they accordingly to the principles laid down in the case of Rylands v Fletcher, which is taught in High School legal studies, they will be strictly liable for it. Of course that case dealt with dangerous substances escaping from the land, but it has been successfully applied to other cases of dangerous items causing damage. This should be no different.. And given most US states are common law based (Louisianna being the Exception as a French colony) and, like Australia, often rely on older English cases for legal principle and law, they should actually keep shtum. The word processor defence is a furphy. We don't ask a word processor a question and it provides an answer without any further input from us; we simply see what we type. However, AI companies now footnote most of their initial responses with a caution that AI responses may be wrong. They may well do better to protect themselves by making sure that those disclaimers are much more prominent.

The operation is over, and I'm home again. I had trouble with the bandage coming off. It was like a turban on a basket ball. The surgeon was called in before I was released today. He said it kept coming off in the operating theatre when they were trying to put it on. He said my head was the wrong shape. Jokingly of course. Then there was the oxygen tube to my nostrils. Kept feeling like my nose was dripping. They put plastic gadgets on your legs to stimulate the blood circulation. They look like cricket pads, and inflate and deflate like a blood pressure cuff, in 3 sections, lower calf, middle calf and upper calf. Don't know what good they did, felt like a cat walking on the bed all night. I ordered grilled chicken breast and steamed vegies for dinner last night. The chicken was hard to cut, and the vegies felt like they were just waved over a steaming pot. Warm and hard. Bit into a largish broccoli floret and felt something hard. It had broken off part of a tooth. Admittedly the tooth had a cavity in it, but should not have broken off biting broccoli. I see the surgeon next Friday to have it checked even though Friday is a public holiday, then the week after go to the Cochlear centre for the outside sound processor.

The leading AI companies in the US are currently spending a lot of money supporting pro-AI development political candidates while at the same time calling for a slowdown on development and more regulation. That seemed like a disconnect, so I asked AI what they were up to. It seems pretty clear that while they likely are concerned about what rogue AI agents could do, what they are really concerned about and what's driving their sudden socially responsible attitude is that they don't want to be sued if their AI models go rogue and cause some catastrophe. What they are aiming for is a light regulatory framework that allows them to claim they are being pro-active and responsible, but that still lets them develop their models unhindered and provides them with legal carve-outs that let them avoid liability when things go wrong. Obviously greed beats altruism every time, and it doesn't inspire much confidence that this will all end well. AI companies and tech executives are heavily funding political candidates, pouring at least $150 million into federal and state-level political campaigns through a complex network of newly established Super PACs and dark money groups. [1] However, their approach to funding candidates does not split neatly into simple "for" or "against" camps regarding AI limits. Instead, the industry is split internally, and their spending strategy reflects a sophisticated attempt to control the terms of regulation and carve out specific legal immunities. [1, 2, 3, 4] 1. Funding Candidates: For vs. Against Limits The AI industry is deploying distinct, contrasting funding strategies to influence lawmakers: [1, 2] Opposing Rigid Regulations: Major tech corporations like Meta, venture firms like Andreessen Horowitz, and executives tied to OpenAI have funded massive Super PACs (such as Leading the Future and the Meta California PAC) to aggressively oppose restrictive regulations. Their money targets both Democrats and Republicans to ensure candidates support rapid tech growth and push back against state-level safety limits or development bans. [1, 2] Advocating for Managed Regulations: Conversely, labs like Anthropic have donated tens of millions to groups like Public First Action, supporting "pro-regulation" political actions aimed at mitigating catastrophic AI risks. Even when AI companies support regulation, critics argue it is a strategy of "regulatory capture"—backing rules that only multi-billion-dollar companies can afford to comply with, thereby locking out smaller competitors. [1, 2, 3] 2. The Fight Over Liability for Rogue AI Actions Your second point touches on the core legal battleground. AI interests are intensely focused on shaping liability laws, specifically regarding unauthorized or harmful actions taken by their models. [1, 2] The Pursuit of Immunity: AI entities are actively lobbying for laws that shield developers from legal liability if an advanced model causes severe or unforeseen real-world harm. For example, reports have surfaced that OpenAI has pushed for legislative proposals granting AI developers immunity from liability under specific catastrophic scenarios, a move publicly opposed by rival Anthropic. [1] The Word Processor Defense: In current lawsuits, companies often argue that a generative AI model is akin to a "word processor"—a tool that generates text based on user input, meaning the developer should not be blamed for what the tool spits out. [1] Why PAC Funding Matters Here: Internet companies have long been protected from user-generated content lawsuits by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. However, the U.S. Supreme Court and prominent legal experts agree that Section 230 does not cover AI-generated content because the AI itself is co-creating the speech. Because tech companies know they cannot rely on existing internet immunity laws, they are spending millions on political campaigns to get friendly lawmakers into office who will draft entirely new statutory exemptions explicitly protecting AI labs. [1, 2, 3] As state and federal lawmakers continue proposing criminal and civil penalties for "model misconduct," the millions flooding the midterms serve as a preemptive shield to dictate exactly who holds the financial and legal bag when an AI system goes rogue.

I like how it only goes to 99,999 miles. Did they not expect cars to do more than 100,000 back then?