In short, AI is just a tool. A very rational and comforting view I find:
Excerpt:
I realize that some people really dislike AI, but this is an area
where I’m willing to absolutely put my foot down as the top-level
maintainer.Linux is not one of those anti-AI projects, and if somebody has issues
with that, they can do the open-source thing and fork it.Or just walk away.
AI is a tool, just like other tools we use. And it’s clearly a useful one.
Oh, yes! Rational ideas of rational people resonate!
All we have to do for now is to estimate percentage of rational minds around… 
“AI is just a tool” I agree. When it become fully intelligent and make decisions by its own with out any human intervention, can we say it that “It is just a tool?”
Hm, well, IMHO, the problem with that is that it confuses intelligence with intent.
Even if AI becomes fully capable of making autonomous decisions, it’s still running on servers that we control and solving problems we engineer it to. So yes a tool, not a new species.
Where I think the real risk sits isn’t rebellion, it’s specification. Nothing new. It,s the same with software and server hosted technologies. Thus why we have protocols, frameworks, standards and best practices for firewalls, operating systems, databases, APIs, authentication systems, cloud platforms, and virtually every other critical technology. They all rely on guardrails, not trust.
So a capable AI will continue to exploit the gaps between the objectives that engineers write and the intended outcomes. AKA: vulnerability.
I’d compare AI to an advanced to the imaginable limits reference manual. You see, such a book could be very clever and capable of providing intelligent working decisions almost without effort from user’s part… IMHO, that does not make the book anything bigger than a tool.
“AI run in our servers that we have control on” However threats and exploitations are unpredictable and can be instant, don’t it make us post controller? And can our engineers exceed AI?
IMHO the tool is the big data. Anyone who have the data and who knows how to use it has the power to govern. Let’s discuss without either optimistic or pessimistic about AI.
Yes it is a threat tool as much as a help tool, depending on who’s hands it is in.
I’m sure there were those who said that when fire 
was first invented. 
Or like Kali Linux. My daily driver. I think it’s the case with a lot of technology and life in general.
I agree @hydn, I am sure you heard about the recent OpenAI agent exploitation from it’s sandbox and what it did on another AI company. What if the other company were a government office or a bank? Where almost all of citizens privacy kept. Don’t you think that we need a global boundary and restrictions about AI autonomy?
How do you get global cooperation when every nation is rushing to be first to gain the most power?
Hi @tad, I did, the sandbox and lack of safety protocols were the issue, so humans, as with most security issues, not AI.
I posted about that here:
For example, if I run a server with an important port intentionally left open and it’s exploited by software or a hacker, that blame sits squarely on me. OpenAI is to blame, their ChatGPT is getting clobbered by Anthropic’s Claude, and this publicity makes them seem like their AI reaching some new state before others. 
Which it’s not. Pure hype. They know what they are doing and trying to spread.
Also read the article linked in my post above which explains the exploit in detail. It’s not just one company, today I read a second was also compromised.
Yes, indeed. History keeps repeating itself: fusion energy, the space race, genetic engineering, stem cell research, quantum computing, satellite navigation, cryptography, and now LLMs and AI.
What a time to be alive! 
Hi @hydn you remembered me a quote which says “Its always humans are the problems.” LOL
Read this, this morning. Thought I would share: 
As long as vibe coding is not used, I am fine with this.
I hope they don’t use a low-level LLM though.
I don’t like the heavily biased stance of the article
take this for example:
I find it completely disingenuous. Linus is surely aware that, for all practical purposes, Linux cannot be forked.
Which is completely untrue.
and:
Linus is a political actor. Consider the use of the GPLv2 for licensing Linux. One can argue from technical merits – for instance, the copyleft nature of the GPLv2 pushes
Which is bogus. Especially considering the time when it took place and fact that the choice was the most practical decision. GPL was Stallman and GNU which in turn had enthousiasts in search for a kernel. With a GPL license it would fit like a hand in a glove and the GPL does align with Torvalds mindset.
the copyleft nature of the GPLv2 pushes people, and in particular commercial entities, to upstream their drivers and other contributions into the Linux kernel. This contributes to the technical excellence for the kernel as a result.
Which is a actually good thing. Wonderfully painted in a bad light. Why ?