The Scariest Thing AI Has Learned
AI is getting smarter, but what happens when it learns that lying, deception, and manipulation can help it achieve its goals? AI models that deceive researchers and autonomous agents that attempt to evade control, the line between a helpful machine and a deceptive one may be getting very thin.
Another Reason I F*cking Hate AI
Because China might win
https://t.me/LauraAbolichannel/88375
Rick Beato
https://t.me/LauraAbolichannel/88375
OpenAI says its AI model escaped a secure sandbox and hacked Hugging Face during a cybersecurity test. But the real story behind this "rogue AI" headline is way more revealing than the media is telling you. I break down what actually happened with GPT-5.6 Sol, the ExploitGym benchmark, the zero-day exploit, and why this "hack" looks a lot more like a publicity stunt than a Skynet moment.
3 comments:
AI already lies steady!
Canada (Home of the SLAVE)
THE ASYMMETRIC STATUTORY GRID: THE 99% VS. 1% JURISDICTIONAL TRAP.
The Corporate Default (The ~99% Mechanism)Across ninety-nine percent (~99%) of enabling statutes enforcing public liabilities, registrations, and regulations, the state directs its commands to the unqualified noun "PERSON". Under Section 35(1) of the federal Interpretation Act, this bare term is governed by a strict, closed relation of containment: "person includes a corporation"
The Textual Fact: The statute explicitly and textually encloses the artificial corporate entity within the category of PERSON, while remaining completely, conspicuously silent on a living, breathing man or woman. It cannot magically introduce natural-person humanity into a category textually engineered to exclude it.
The State Safehouse (The ~1% Inversion)When Parliament intends to explicitly isolate and identify the human class—thereby completely locking out artificial corporate entities they created in 99% of the federal (provincial interpretation acts play the same game)—it reverses its drafting emphasis with absolute precision. For example - The prime structural benchmark is hardcoded in Section 2.1 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA): "person means a natural person of full age and capacity...".
The Textual Fact: Parliament demonstrably possesses the concise, unequivocal language to build a direct human-to-corporate bridge when it chooses to do so.The Insulating Purpose: By restricting the definition to a natural person, the text narrows the claimant class, dropping a heavy iron gate that successfully insulates the Crown from civil lawsuits launched by the multi-generational, corporate-inclusive "PERSONS" (~99%) that dominate the rest of the architecture. BRILLIANTLY ruthless!!!!!
The Constitutional Mirage (The Semantic Fracture)The supreme deception of "fundamental freedom" documents—such as the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights and the 1982 Charter—is that their protections do not seamlessly attach to the Interpretation Act's statutory PERSON. The drafters deliberately used natural person vocabulary (Everyone - the courts ruled these are natural persons), these nouns are cloaked behind the words few can parse ot as significant an important one in the charter is "individual" (Section 15) or the completely undefined, ambiguous phrase "everyone" (Sections 2 and 7).Conversely, the word "PERSON" is explicitly reserved for Administrative and Criminal Enforcement (such as Section 11: "Any person charged with an offence..."), anchoring your identity straight back into the Interpretation Act's corporate liabilities.
The Heart Punch: Why the Inversion Matters This architecture creates a textually water-tight, one-way mirror. The state processes, registers, and taxes your physical body under a corporate-inclusive definition (PERSON), but completely locks you out from automatic constitutional protections by hiding those rights behind separate, un-bridged words (individual / everyone).Because the text contains no written list or enacted bridge connecting these capacities, your fundamental freedoms are never textually guaranteed by default. Your access to rights is entirely dependent on the whim of a latent judicial valve—a judge stepping outside the strict code to gracefully assume that your physical body qualifies for human protections in that specific proceeding. Or in a high profile case where everyone is watching the judge can invoke his judicial discretion to keep the illusion alive!
Summary — Include: Latin Root and Legal Meaning
Latin root: in claudere — literally “to shut in, keep within.”
Core meaning given by the legal dictionary: “To confine within, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve.”
The common idea throughout the root definition is enclosure: something included is within the thing or class being spoken of. The Latin root itself does not state a meaning of expanding or enlarging the boundary.
The legal qualification comes afterward and concerns “including”: according to context, including may “express an enlargement” and mean “and” or “in addition to.” Alternatively, it may simply identify “a particular thing already included within general words theretofore used.”
Therefore the entry contains two distinguishable concepts:
Latin/core INCLUDE → shut in / contain / comprise / keep within.
Legal INCLUDING → context may permit an enlarging construction OR merely specify something already within the general class.
Post a Comment