That stupid low life Liebermann cried as usual that I didn't know what I said that I had been one of the first to program using artificial intelligence and in my opinion it offered no threat to anyone.
Well, the Democrats have been passing out fear messages as if AI would take over the world.
This is all BS and here is an article that pretty much echoes what I said. >https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/human-evolution/the-real-ai-danger-is-not-superintelligence-it-is-premature-trust-opinion(appended tracking information deleted from URL).
Why would anyone be afraid of something with an off switch?
On Thu, 17 Sep 2026 19:39:32 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That stupid low life Liebermann cried as usual that I didn't know what I said that I had been one of the first to program using artificial intelligence and in my opinion it offered no threat to anyone.
Masochist. Among all the RBT readers, who might agree with you, you
chose the one person who will consistently demonstrate that you lie, misinterpret and distort. Do you enjoy pain?
What you proclaimed was:
07/24/2023 <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/7IcUdM6SCOs/m/6JYj_0F7BgAJ> "When the universities started talking about AI I was one of the first
in private business to program AI into medical instruments."
Well, the Democrats have been passing out fear messages as if AI would take over the world.
I'm a registered Republican, not a Democrat. However, I will admit to occasionally voting Democrat (or throwing my vote away when neither
party can produce a worthwhile candidate). I do not fear AI. I fear
those who will use AI as a weapon.
This is all BS and here is an article that pretty much echoes what I said. >> https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/human-evolution/the-real-ai-danger-is-not-superintelligence-it-is-premature-trust-opinion(appended tracking information deleted from URL).
True. AI won't be a threat, but is likely to be a disappointment,
just like the title to the article you didn't bother to read:
"We're not about to awaken an evil digital god - AI is far more likely
to end in a great disappointment".
Have you invested your millions in AI companies?
Why would anyone be afraid of something with an off switch?
For DC circuits, turning on a switch might create a small spark.
However, turning off the switch can result in a large hot arc and
potentially a fire or explosion.
On 9/17/2026 11:12 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2026 19:39:32 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That stupid low life Liebermann cried as usual that I
didn't know what I said that I had been one of the first
to program using artificial intelligence and in my
opinion it offered no threat to anyone.
Masochist.-a Among all the RBT readers, who might agree
with you, you
chose the one person who will consistently demonstrate
that you lie,
misinterpret and distort.-a Do you enjoy pain?
What you proclaimed was:
07/24/2023
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/
c/7IcUdM6SCOs/m/6JYj_0F7BgAJ>
"When the universities started talking about AI I was one
of the first
in private business to program AI into medical instruments."
I'm just amused that he continues to tell himself that he
has any experience in AI. AI requires some type of dataset
that the system can append and/or modify on its own (aka
'learn'). Nothing tommyboy ever worked on had a usable
dataset or even had the capability to do anything more than
generate chromatography plots or control stepper motors.
Besides that, we're talking about a guy who posted a piece
of code he allegedly wrote here, then couldn't understand
how I figured out what the hardware target was - hardly the
hallmark of someone who would have been involved in the most
cutting edge software development of the time.
Well, the Democrats have been passing out fear messages
as if AI would take over the world.
yeah, like John Curtis (R-Utah), Josh Hawley (R-Missouri),
and (R-Louisiana) https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/21/senate-republicans- ai-safety-01085069
I'm a registered Republican, not a Democrat.-a However, I
will admit to
occasionally voting Democrat (or throwing my vote away
when neither
party can produce a worthwhile candidate).-a I do not fear
AI.-a I fear
those who will use AI as a weapon.
Ditto
This is all BS and here is an article that pretty much(appended tracking information deleted from URL).
echoes what I said.
https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/human-evolution/
the-real-ai-danger-is-not-superintelligence-it-is-
premature-trust-opinion
True.-a AI won't be a threat, but is likely to be a
disappointment,
just like the title to the article you didn't bother to read:
"We're not about to awaken an evil digital god - AI is far
more likely
to end in a great disappointment".
Have you invested your millions in AI companies?
Why would anyone be afraid of something with an off switch?
They don't have off switches. They have firmware controlled
power management systems that the AI itself can manipulate.
As an example, it's possible to write firmware that ignores
the power button on your PC. Sure, you can unplug from the
wall, but imagine you're in a data center where the system
has access control to the server room and won't let you in.
Sure, go to the mains power coming into the building and
disconnect it - Unless the data center has been configured
to use a dedicated power plant that it also has control over (https://blog.ucs.org/mike-jacobs/power-hungry-why-data- centers-are-developing-their-own-energy-sources-to-fuel-ai/).
Short of contracting a sapper to set up a C4 charge at the
power source, if the AI system decides it doesn't want you
to shut it down, 'manual' shut down systems won't work.
I won't go so far as to claim fear, but there are legitimate
concerns over the damage that an AI system managing a
financial institution can wreak before it's disabled.
For DC circuits, turning on a switch might create a small
spark.
However, turning off the switch can result in a large hot
arc and
potentially a fire or explosion.
On 9/30/2026 5:18 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 9/17/2026 11:12 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2026 19:39:32 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That stupid low life Liebermann cried as usual that I
didn't know what I said that I had been one of the first
to program using artificial intelligence and in my
opinion it offered no threat to anyone.
Masochist.a Among all the RBT readers, who might agree
with you, you
chose the one person who will consistently demonstrate
that you lie,
misinterpret and distort.a Do you enjoy pain?
What you proclaimed was:
07/24/2023
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/
c/7IcUdM6SCOs/m/6JYj_0F7BgAJ>
"When the universities started talking about AI I was one
of the first
in private business to program AI into medical instruments."
I'm just amused that he continues to tell himself that he
has any experience in AI. AI requires some type of dataset
that the system can append and/or modify on its own (aka
'learn'). Nothing tommyboy ever worked on had a usable
dataset or even had the capability to do anything more than
generate chromatography plots or control stepper motors.
Besides that, we're talking about a guy who posted a piece
of code he allegedly wrote here, then couldn't understand
how I figured out what the hardware target was - hardly the
hallmark of someone who would have been involved in the most
cutting edge software development of the time.
Well, the Democrats have been passing out fear messages
as if AI would take over the world.
yeah, like John Curtis (R-Utah), Josh Hawley (R-Missouri),
and (R-Louisiana)
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/21/senate-republicans-
ai-safety-01085069
I'm a registered Republican, not a Democrat.a However, I
will admit to
occasionally voting Democrat (or throwing my vote away
when neither
party can produce a worthwhile candidate).a I do not fear
AI.a I fear
those who will use AI as a weapon.
Ditto
This is all BS and here is an article that pretty much(appended tracking information deleted from URL).
echoes what I said.
https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/human-evolution/
the-real-ai-danger-is-not-superintelligence-it-is-
premature-trust-opinion
True.a AI won't be a threat, but is likely to be a
disappointment,
just like the title to the article you didn't bother to read:
"We're not about to awaken an evil digital god - AI is far
more likely
to end in a great disappointment".
Have you invested your millions in AI companies?
Why would anyone be afraid of something with an off switch?
They don't have off switches. They have firmware controlled
power management systems that the AI itself can manipulate.
As an example, it's possible to write firmware that ignores
the power button on your PC. Sure, you can unplug from the
wall, but imagine you're in a data center where the system
has access control to the server room and won't let you in.
Sure, go to the mains power coming into the building and
disconnect it - Unless the data center has been configured
to use a dedicated power plant that it also has control over
(https://blog.ucs.org/mike-jacobs/power-hungry-why-data-
centers-are-developing-their-own-energy-sources-to-fuel-ai/).
Short of contracting a sapper to set up a C4 charge at the
power source, if the AI system decides it doesn't want you
to shut it down, 'manual' shut down systems won't work.
I won't go so far as to claim fear, but there are legitimate
concerns over the damage that an AI system managing a
financial institution can wreak before it's disabled.
For DC circuits, turning on a switch might create a small
spark.
However, turning off the switch can result in a large hot
arc and
potentially a fire or explosion.
The sticking point here is not technical, it's liability,
and no one has found any answers thus far.
When a level 2 (assistance, warnings) auto crashes, it's the
driver's liability. When a level 3 (full autonomous; driver
can be asleep) auto crashes, it's the system provider's
liability. Extend that beyond autos to other areas
(pharmaceuticals, legal advice, traffic signals, power
management...) and you have a tort minefield.
The current players are deeply upside down on capex without
a compelling revenue/ROI model, and they desperately need a
solution, hence the pleas for regulation. In theory, the
provider could fall back on, 'The US Government approved
this system.' I can't see any possible functional regulatory
regime, as the regulators will be captured posthaste.
Technically, a regulator would need to examine and test
every bit of code in gargantuan systems across myriad
platforms and rigorously test all the various modules under
nearly infinite scenarios. Good luck with that.
On 9/30/2026 5:18 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 9/17/2026 11:12 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2026 19:39:32 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That stupid low life Liebermann cried as usual that I didn't know
what I said that I had been one of the first to program using
artificial intelligence and in my opinion it offered no threat to
anyone.
Masochist.-a Among all the RBT readers, who might agree with you, you
chose the one person who will consistently demonstrate that you lie,
misinterpret and distort.-a Do you enjoy pain?
What you proclaimed was:
07/24/2023
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/ c/7IcUdM6SCOs/
m/6JYj_0F7BgAJ>
"When the universities started talking about AI I was one of the first
in private business to program AI into medical instruments."
I'm just amused that he continues to tell himself that he has any
experience in AI. AI requires some type of dataset that the system can
append and/or modify on its own (aka 'learn'). Nothing tommyboy ever
worked on had a usable dataset or even had the capability to do
anything more than generate chromatography plots or control stepper
motors. Besides that, we're talking about a guy who posted a piece of
code he allegedly wrote here, then couldn't understand how I figured
out what the hardware target was - hardly the hallmark of someone who
would have been involved in the most cutting edge software development
of the time.
Well, the Democrats have been passing out fear messages as if AI
would take over the world.
yeah, like John Curtis (R-Utah), Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), and (R-
Louisiana)
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/21/senate-republicans- ai-
safety-01085069
I'm a registered Republican, not a Democrat.-a However, I will admit to
occasionally voting Democrat (or throwing my vote away when neither
party can produce a worthwhile candidate).-a I do not fear AI.-a I fear
those who will use AI as a weapon.
Ditto
This is all BS and here is an article that pretty much echoes what I(appended tracking information deleted from URL).
said.
https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/human-evolution/ the-real-
ai-danger-is-not-superintelligence-it-is- premature-trust-opinion
True.-a AI won't be a threat, but is likely to be a disappointment,
just like the title to the article you didn't bother to read:
"We're not about to awaken an evil digital god - AI is far more likely
to end in a great disappointment".
Have you invested your millions in AI companies?
Why would anyone be afraid of something with an off switch?
They don't have off switches. They have firmware controlled power
management systems that the AI itself can manipulate. As an example,
it's possible to write firmware that ignores the power button on your
PC. Sure, you can unplug from the wall, but imagine you're in a data
center where the system has access control to the server room and
won't let you in. Sure, go to the mains power coming into the building
and disconnect it - Unless the data center has been configured to use
a dedicated power plant that it also has control over (https://
blog.ucs.org/mike-jacobs/power-hungry-why-data- centers-are-
developing-their-own-energy-sources-to-fuel-ai/).
Short of contracting a sapper to set up a C4 charge at the power
source, if the AI system decides it doesn't want you to shut it down,
'manual' shut down systems won't work.
I won't go so far as to claim fear, but there are legitimate concerns
over the damage that an AI system managing a financial institution can
wreak before it's disabled.
For DC circuits, turning on a switch might create a small spark.
However, turning off the switch can result in a large hot arc and
potentially a fire or explosion.
The sticking point here is not technical, it's liability, and no one has found any answers thus far.
When a level 2 (assistance, warnings) auto crashes, it's the driver's liability. When a level 3 (full autonomous; driver can be asleep) auto crashes, it's the system provider's liability.-a Extend that beyond autos
to other areas (pharmaceuticals, legal advice, traffic signals, power management...) and you have a tort minefield.
The current players are deeply upside down on capex without a compelling revenue/ROI model, and they desperately need a solution, hence the pleas
for regulation. In theory, the provider could fall back on, 'The US Government approved this system.' I can't see any possible functional regulatory regime, as the regulators will be captured posthaste.
Technically, a regulator would need to examine and test every bit of
code in gargantuan systems across myriad platforms and rigorously test
all the various modules under nearly infinite scenarios. Good luck with that.
On 9/30/2026 8:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/30/2026 5:18 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 9/17/2026 11:12 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2026 19:39:32 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That stupid low life Liebermann cried as usual that I
didn't know what I said that I had been one of the
first to program using artificial intelligence and in
my opinion it offered no threat to anyone.
Masochist.-a Among all the RBT readers, who might agree
with you, you
chose the one person who will consistently demonstrate
that you lie,
misinterpret and distort.-a Do you enjoy pain?
What you proclaimed was:
07/24/2023
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/
c/7IcUdM6SCOs/ m/6JYj_0F7BgAJ>
"When the universities started talking about AI I was
one of the first
in private business to program AI into medical
instruments."
I'm just amused that he continues to tell himself that he
has any experience in AI. AI requires some type of
dataset that the system can append and/or modify on its
own (aka 'learn'). Nothing tommyboy ever worked on had a
usable dataset or even had the capability to do anything
more than generate chromatography plots or control
stepper motors. Besides that, we're talking about a guy
who posted a piece of code he allegedly wrote here, then
couldn't understand how I figured out what the hardware
target was - hardly the hallmark of someone who would
have been involved in the most cutting edge software
development of the time.
Well, the Democrats have been passing out fear messages
as if AI would take over the world.
yeah, like John Curtis (R-Utah), Josh Hawley (R-
Missouri), and (R- Louisiana)
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/21/senate-
republicans- ai- safety-01085069
I'm a registered Republican, not a Democrat.-a However, I
will admit to
occasionally voting Democrat (or throwing my vote away
when neither
party can produce a worthwhile candidate).-a I do not
fear AI.-a I fear
those who will use AI as a weapon.
Ditto
This is all BS and here is an article that pretty much(appended tracking information deleted from URL).
echoes what I said.
https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/human-
evolution/ the-real- ai-danger-is-not-
superintelligence-it-is- premature-trust-opinion
True.-a AI won't be a threat, but is likely to be a
disappointment,
just like the title to the article you didn't bother to
read:
"We're not about to awaken an evil digital god - AI is
far more likely
to end in a great disappointment".
Have you invested your millions in AI companies?
Why would anyone be afraid of something with an off
switch?
They don't have off switches. They have firmware
controlled power management systems that the AI itself
can manipulate. As an example, it's possible to write
firmware that ignores the power button on your PC. Sure,
you can unplug from the wall, but imagine you're in a
data center where the system has access control to the
server room and won't let you in. Sure, go to the mains
power coming into the building and disconnect it - Unless
the data center has been configured to use a dedicated
power plant that it also has control over (https://
blog.ucs.org/mike-jacobs/power-hungry-why-data- centers-
are- developing-their-own-energy-sources-to-fuel-ai/).
Short of contracting a sapper to set up a C4 charge at
the power source, if the AI system decides it doesn't
want you to shut it down, 'manual' shut down systems
won't work.
I won't go so far as to claim fear, but there are
legitimate concerns over the damage that an AI system
managing a financial institution can wreak before it's
disabled.
For DC circuits, turning on a switch might create a
small spark.
However, turning off the switch can result in a large
hot arc and
potentially a fire or explosion.
The sticking point here is not technical, it's liability,
and no one has found any answers thus far.
When a level 2 (assistance, warnings) auto crashes, it's
the driver's liability. When a level 3 (full autonomous;
driver can be asleep) auto crashes, it's the system
provider's liability.-a Extend that beyond autos to other
areas (pharmaceuticals, legal advice, traffic signals,
power management...) and you have a tort minefield.
Then throw in a CEO who's the worlds richest person who has
been instrumental in dismantling the regulatory and watchdog
agencies meant to oversee such systems and can influence
(aka 'purchase') legislation that shields them from such
liability.....
The current players are deeply upside down on capex
without a compelling revenue/ROI model, and they
desperately need a solution, hence the pleas for
regulation. In theory, the provider could fall back on,
'The US Government approved this system.' I can't see any
possible functional regulatory regime, as the regulators
will be captured posthaste.
Technically, a regulator would need to examine and test
every bit of code in gargantuan systems across myriad
platforms and rigorously test all the various modules
under nearly infinite scenarios. Good luck with that.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 09:43:47 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,353 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (1,590K bytes) |
| Messages: | 292,239 |