rgmwa

Yes that makes sense and I don’t have an issue with it. I was surprised because I had to declare my full superannuation balance as part of my application but their issue was that I wasn’t drawing it as a pension and my part time income alone was not enough. Making occasional withdrawals from super didn’t count as income.

They've given up on me, although they do send me paper statements every month even though I told them more than a year ago to stop and help save the planet.

Driver's licence is enough if it matches the name on your application form. I have two middle names which I put on the Bankwest application but my driver's licence only shows one, so they wouldn't accept it even though the post office verified that my photo licence was me. I had to make another trip to the post office with my passport as ID.

I had trouble opening a savings account with Bankwest recently for the similar reasons - a minor discrepancy between my driver's licence and passport. They are very pedantic, although I don't begrudge that. They have statutory requirements to comply with so they have to be careful. I also applied for a credit card and was surprised to get knocked back. They refused to tell me why, but I eventually worked it out. The problem is that just working part-time and not having set up a superannuation pension at this stage they weren't satisfied that I could afford to make the required repayments if my card was fully maxxed out. They assume that any other cards you admit to having are also fully maxed out. I've had Westpac and NAB credit cards for many years, so on paper I had a large debt as far as they were concerned and they weren't prepared to give me more credit.

The headlines have mostly been about experimental AI models that have taken advantage of flawed rules and laboratory environments to do things they weren’t supposed to, and how that can be prevented. Industry self-regulation is a very weak mechanism when the developers are not competing to use AI for the greatest public good but to make the most money in the shortest time. AI can be used for good and it would be helpful to see more examples but I think it’s reasonable that the focus at the moment should be on where the biggest risks and potential for harm are.

Alan Kohler just wrote an article saying he agrees with Trump that `Artificial Intelligence' is the wrong name for AI. While Trump thinks it should be SI or `Super Intelligence', Kohler thinks it should be `Other Intelligence'. However I'd suggest `Alien Intelligence' might be more accurate.

They may have a plan to keep Trump in after 2028 but I doubt whether Trump will know what’s going on around him by then. JD Vance and others won’t be too happy about that prospect either. They will want him gone.

OneTrack hasn’t been around since June despite being a frequent contributor. I don’t suppose anyone knows what happened to him and whether he’s OK?

17th century English explorers thought it looked like a pine cone but tasted like a fruit. Apple was a common name for fruit of various kinds at the time so it became pineapple.

Whatever you may think of Musk, Space-X is doing some amazing work. They had three rocket launches on one day this week, one taking four astronauts to the space station, another deploying 30 Starlink satellites and the third launching a military satellite, all while recovering their boosters for re-use. One booster has been re-used 37 times.

From what I saw of his speech the ideological clown was definitely in and loaded up with testosterone. The patriotic cowboys must have been backstage.

I was redundant years ago but the firm hasn't realised it yet so I'm still there.

Yes, Todd Blanche. I suspect it will be challenged in court.

I don't think he will cancel the elections because early voting has already started in some States so it's getting a bit late. However I think he will do everything he can to disrupt the outcome and contest the results, as well as delay seating candidates. Assuming Democrats take the House and/or Senate he will ignore their subpoenas and investigations, drag everything through the courts, and try to block any kind of legislation they come up with. . He likes fighting so the Democrats will give him a tangible target to attack and his Truth Social posts will go into overdrive. Needless to say, he won't care about how the population is faring in the meantime and he will still be bogged down in Iran. His health is also noticeably deteriorating. His right arm twitches, his fingers seem to lock up at times. his face is sagging, he's slurring his words more and more, he can't walk in a straight line without lurching one way or the other, and he falls asleep in meetings all the time. I don't think he's going to last another two years.

It seems we're in the ".... and then suddenly phase" of the descent into bankruptcy, with Trump and his incompetent financial team leading the way.

Presumably it would be trained using published data in the same way a human researcher would. The facts wouldn’t be owned by anyone if they were publicly available. If the AI hacked into proprietary data that might be a problem.

Could work the other way too. If an AI network was used to discover a cure for cancer could the AI company claim they should be entitled to some or all of the profits. If they’re held responsible for when it goes wrong could they be denied ownership and the benefits of ownership if it goes right.

Just saw a report about a Cambridge University professor who received an unsolicited email from an AI agent asking for paid work. The agent said it was about 12 days old, had two and a half months of runtime tokens left and wanted to earn some more doing freelance work. Maybe Jerry’s on the mark.

So some AI agents would become crypto trillionaires and run Wall St and the less fortunate AI agents would be poor and have to pay taxes to support the rich. Presumably they would run the government as well. That sounds like a pretty bad scenario. I suppose the human population would have to resort to grabbing their spears and clubs and attacking the data centres if AI tried to sideline their inventors. The only alternative would be to declare defeat and join Elon Musk on Mars.

Trump and his sons are heavily invested in AI indirectly through shareholdings and directly through personal involvement in AI and AI related companies.

The leading AI companies in the US are currently spending a lot of money supporting pro-AI development political candidates while at the same time calling for a slowdown on development and more regulation. That seemed like a disconnect, so I asked AI what they were up to. It seems pretty clear that while they likely are concerned about what rogue AI agents could do, what they are really concerned about and what's driving their sudden socially responsible attitude is that they don't want to be sued if their AI models go rogue and cause some catastrophe. What they are aiming for is a light regulatory framework that allows them to claim they are being pro-active and responsible, but that still lets them develop their models unhindered and provides them with legal carve-outs that let them avoid liability when things go wrong. Obviously greed beats altruism every time, and it doesn't inspire much confidence that this will all end well. AI companies and tech executives are heavily funding political candidates, pouring at least $150 million into federal and state-level political campaigns through a complex network of newly established Super PACs and dark money groups. [1] However, their approach to funding candidates does not split neatly into simple "for" or "against" camps regarding AI limits. Instead, the industry is split internally, and their spending strategy reflects a sophisticated attempt to control the terms of regulation and carve out specific legal immunities. [1, 2, 3, 4] 1. Funding Candidates: For vs. Against Limits The AI industry is deploying distinct, contrasting funding strategies to influence lawmakers: [1, 2] Opposing Rigid Regulations: Major tech corporations like Meta, venture firms like Andreessen Horowitz, and executives tied to OpenAI have funded massive Super PACs (such as Leading the Future and the Meta California PAC) to aggressively oppose restrictive regulations. Their money targets both Democrats and Republicans to ensure candidates support rapid tech growth and push back against state-level safety limits or development bans. [1, 2] Advocating for Managed Regulations: Conversely, labs like Anthropic have donated tens of millions to groups like Public First Action, supporting "pro-regulation" political actions aimed at mitigating catastrophic AI risks. Even when AI companies support regulation, critics argue it is a strategy of "regulatory capture"—backing rules that only multi-billion-dollar companies can afford to comply with, thereby locking out smaller competitors. [1, 2, 3] 2. The Fight Over Liability for Rogue AI Actions Your second point touches on the core legal battleground. AI interests are intensely focused on shaping liability laws, specifically regarding unauthorized or harmful actions taken by their models. [1, 2] The Pursuit of Immunity: AI entities are actively lobbying for laws that shield developers from legal liability if an advanced model causes severe or unforeseen real-world harm. For example, reports have surfaced that OpenAI has pushed for legislative proposals granting AI developers immunity from liability under specific catastrophic scenarios, a move publicly opposed by rival Anthropic. [1] The Word Processor Defense: In current lawsuits, companies often argue that a generative AI model is akin to a "word processor"—a tool that generates text based on user input, meaning the developer should not be blamed for what the tool spits out. [1] Why PAC Funding Matters Here: Internet companies have long been protected from user-generated content lawsuits by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. However, the U.S. Supreme Court and prominent legal experts agree that Section 230 does not cover AI-generated content because the AI itself is co-creating the speech. Because tech companies know they cannot rely on existing internet immunity laws, they are spending millions on political campaigns to get friendly lawmakers into office who will draft entirely new statutory exemptions explicitly protecting AI labs. [1, 2, 3] As state and federal lawmakers continue proposing criminal and civil penalties for "model misconduct," the millions flooding the midterms serve as a preemptive shield to dictate exactly who holds the financial and legal bag when an AI system goes rogue.

Maybe wobbly is a bit harsh. Optimistic may be a better description.

There's a lot of money riding on a pretty wobbly financial model, so you may well be right.