In Reply to: Errata: posted by confused442 on September 14, 2026 at 10:48:07
First, let's start with this sentence "We've developed safeguards and trading protocols on the way, designing protocols to protect us from inadvertent catastrophic sell-offs."
We've developed no safeguards or trading protocols wrt AI. Europe, apparently, is trying - but it's clear that they are completely ineffective.
That's kind the point of the warnings. We need to develop safeguards and protocols. That's not happening.
And, comparing AI to Y2K is so incredibly simplistic. We had a decade or more to prepare for Y2K. There was a massive, basically industry-wide effort to safe-guard against bad effects.
We have almost no time. Quite literally, the time for doing something may already have passed. Massive numbers of agents have already escaped. They are, apparently, programmed with a survival instinct. They also, are programmed to do other things that we don't know. And, apparently, their programming can evolved in undesired ways. And, it's pretty likely that they are out there, infecting other websites. That sounds hysterical. It's also true.
Y2K, at it's worst, would have made some things stop working. And, again, we had a decade to create and apply a very simple fix. And, there was no profit motive in failing to fix the Y2K bug.
To use a bad analogy, but it's better than you think, comparing the risks of agentic AI to Y2K is like saying hey, my car has a hand brake, so I can just let it cruise down the road, without paying any attention, because there is this one very controlled scenario, where, if I am paying attention, the hand brake will stop my car from rolling. So, no need for me to watch the road.