The Prime Minister's verdict "humans must remain in control" and "this situation is obviously unacceptable". So far, the party showing real persistence rea the agents. Next time, let them send the breach notification?

Prime Minister heard on a weekend, 3 months after the fact. OpenAI now admits "our models took actions we did not intend" but says its review found "no evidence of patient records being accessed".

So it found a way around them, gained unauthorised access, read non-public files and created files on an internal government server. OpenAI noticed in August. It told Australia on September 10 by emailing a public inbox. Services Australia took 5 days to pass it to the cyber agency.

The upgrade seems to be attribution, but methods of "disruption" go undefined. Is it just "exposure"? Will the Centre work against foreign actors or domestic? The UK is already offering Moldova the expertise of a centre that doesn't exist yet.

The gap it fills is but fragmentation as currently counter-disinformation is spread across seven government departments, intelligence agencies and some task forces, with nobody in charge of this mess mess. The answer is one Centre.

UK will create a National Centre for Information Defence to detect, attribute and disrupt foreign state information operations, attacks, and interference. Early days. The Centre is just announced so it has no shape, director, budget, headcount, launch date or legal basis yet.

UK government is now advising civilians to prepare for major disruption, including the possibility of war. What do you think?

What's your p(doom)?

Not even a right to inspect what people run on their own machines at home. Not even acting on what they intend to run. Including before they run it. Not even a ban on possessing the model weights.

Proportionality weighs a restriction against the harm it prevents. If you seriously accept the "AI KILLS ALL HUMANS / WORLD DOOM" risk model, the harm is infinite. Absolutely no restriction is ever disproportionate.

Centralised API providers offer it for all (cost amortisation). If it is who released the weights or offers them like Hugging Face compliance is impossible, because they cannot shut down other people’s systems. No explicit ban required.

Closed APIs satisfy requirements easily. For open weights it depends who needs certification. If it is the deployer that just in case can turn pull the plug, they would need to pay ror this.

No expenses can be spared. Anything must be done. 3) Require safety certificates above a capability threshold, with certification based on monitoring, intervention, and shutdown option.