lostinbr
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | Baton Rouge, LA |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 12890 |
| Registered on: | 10/15/2017 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Leavitt took all first team snaps today
Posted by lostinbr on 9/17/26 at 11:50 am to Tigerfan1999
quote:
by Tigerfan1999
quote:
to Tiger fan999
1
re: Is there a real fear of AI or are all of the larger companies scared of open source?
Posted by lostinbr on 9/14/26 at 12:43 pm to Odysseus32
quote:
The retort is that we won't know the motivations of AI and they'd be different than humans. To which I would say, exactly. We have no idea what a sentient AI would want. It might literally be sunshine and rainbows.
I mean yeah, that’s the rub.
But most of the AI “doomers” don’t believe that AI is guaranteed to kill us all. They believe that the risk outweighs the reward.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume superintelligence represents a 50% chance of utopia and a 50% chance of extinction. Is that a worthwhile risk? What if the risk of extinction is only 10%? 5%? 1%?
The argument from most of the doomers is that when you account for the existential risk plus the less-than-existential risk (catastrophe that doesn’t rise to extinction level, consolidation of power, dystopia, etc.), the risks outweigh the upside.
The whole “sentience” fear is a red herring. It’s not something we would really be able to measure anyway. From what I’ve seen, sentience is pretty low on the list of fears for the actual AI doomers. It’s more about misalignment and unintended consequences.
quote:
I get what you're saying, but they are saying that it "will kill mankind" while still pushing forward with it as quickly as possible. So that is fairly telling.
From an ideological standpoint, I don’t think it’s that hard to reconcile. It’s the intersection of several different pressures:
1. Concern that if the wrong person/group builds superintelligence, it could represent existential risk.
2. The idea that the first person/group to build superintelligence will hold all the cards.
3. The mantra that “if we don’t build it, someone else will.”
4. Simple market forces.
Generally speaking, I think most people believe their own intentions to be good. If you think you have good intentions, and you think superintelligence is inevitable, then it’s reasonable to believe you should be the one to build it even if you think building it in the first place is a mistake. I don’t think it’s that different from the logic of scientists on the Manhattan Project in that respect.
To be clear: I’m not really making a judgement here on whether superintelligence is truly possible/likely, whether the existential fears are justified, or whether the people at the tops of the AI firms actually *are* the right people to build it. Just pointing out where the perceived contradiction might come from.
I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Altman and Musk have both been beating the existential risk drum since at least 2020 or so. Then both seemed to sort of.. punt on it, favoring scaling above all else. Recently we’re seeing the pendulum swing back toward concern. I’d be less inclined to believe the concern if not for the fact that many of them voiced the same concerns before anyone really took AI seriously.
I think we’re reaching a point where the risk is becoming tangible. Maybe not to the point of existential risk yet, but legitimate cybersecurity risk at least.
I also think it’s easy to conflate different AI safety issues when talking about the big AI firms compared to local models.
Some of the issues - use of AI for biohacking/terrorism for example - apply to local models as well as hosted models. But I don’t think the concerns about recursive self-improvement, loss of control, and escape really apply to local / open-source models. Those concerns apply to models that use orders of magnitude more compute than anything locally-hosted. It’s kind of apples-to-oranges in that case.
I think we’re reaching a point where the risk is becoming tangible. Maybe not to the point of existential risk yet, but legitimate cybersecurity risk at least.
I also think it’s easy to conflate different AI safety issues when talking about the big AI firms compared to local models.
Some of the issues - use of AI for biohacking/terrorism for example - apply to local models as well as hosted models. But I don’t think the concerns about recursive self-improvement, loss of control, and escape really apply to local / open-source models. Those concerns apply to models that use orders of magnitude more compute than anything locally-hosted. It’s kind of apples-to-oranges in that case.
re: Arkansas has 2 football players on its roster that had a brief stint in a mini camp
Posted by lostinbr on 9/11/26 at 9:10 pm to BROpaneTANK
quote:
Is the line they drew out of thin air non-ambiguous enough that the difference between the two goes from unmentioned/unchallenged by anyone to getting 15 school presidents together and lashing out “for blood”, sanctioning, calling into question the president and AD’s control of the program, a federal lawsuit, and attempting to expel you?
This is the issue. It’s not just that this is the arbitrary line the SEC drew in the sand, or that the language of the rule still leaves some ambiguity. That’s alone is not why everyone’s so outraged.
It’s the fact that the SEC took this arbitrary and ambiguous line, then used it to launch a coordinated media campaign against LSU and threatened to expel LSU from the conference. When LSU never even violated the rule in question.
Not to mention the SEC’s unsubstantiated allegation in their federal lawsuit that Kiffin encouraged the players to sue the NCAA/SEC, while ignoring that at least one of the players is on the record saying he wasn’t even thinking about LSU until Ole Miss told him they wanted him to switch positions.
Holding your ground based on an arbitrary and ambiguous rule is one thing. Declaring total war over it is another thing entirely.
re: Arkansas has 2 football players on its roster that had a brief stint in a mini camp
Posted by lostinbr on 9/11/26 at 9:00 pm to pseudocajun
quote:
Ha, you can’t factually dismiss my response so you resort to disinformation.
Bruh. Your post started with:
quote:
That article highlights a very different reality than what was being tossed around on that message board:
You really gonna sit there and tell us that’s your actual response to OP? Okay.. I’ll bite. What article? What message board? :lol:
I wasn’t trying to argue any point other than the fact that it’s annoying when people just copy and paste whatever the AI spits out as responses.
But “disinformation”? At least own it. :lol:
re: Arkansas has 2 football players on its roster that had a brief stint in a mini camp
Posted by lostinbr on 9/11/26 at 7:39 pm to pseudocajun
Thanks ChatGPT. Very helpful. :rolleyes:
re: Some in the SEC are still seeking suspension of Kiffin
Posted by lostinbr on 9/10/26 at 8:30 am to Choupique19
quote:
I accuse everyone of them.
I don’t think it’s exactly a stretch, and I would argue there’s more evidence tying Ole Miss to this than LSU.
quote:
"It was always Ole Miss," Harris said. "I was going to go back to Ole Miss."
quote:
"Ole Miss wanted me to come back to play offensive line," Harris said. "I wasn't thinking about LSU until they said something about playing offensive line. That really turned the whole boat around. Knowing I had to get my body back in shape, I knew where to go for it. That's the only reason."
Does that sound like a player who was coordinating with Lane Kiffin before joining the lawsuit?
So on one hand we have a broken link to a CBS Sports segment in the complaint, which purportedly cites unnamed sources. On the other hand, we have Zxavian Harris’ own statements on the record saying he wasn’t even thinking about LSU until Ole Miss wanted him to switch to OL.
quote:
First I hear “they are asking the court for the right to expel LSU”
Then I hear “they can expel LSU with a 2/3 majority”
These statements don’t line up
What do the bylaws say? Can they do it with a 2/3 vote or not?
The bylaws say:
quote:
3.1.5 Termination of Membership. Membership of a member may be terminated involuntarily at a meeting of the Chief Executive Officers. A vote of at least two-thirds of all the Chief Executive Officers is required to terminate membership. Any motion to terminate membership shall specify the effective date of the proposed termination. [Revised: 1/14/21]
So under the bylaws, yes they can do it with a 2/3 vote.
I think what the SEC wants is for a federal court to confirm, effectively, that the SEC has full authority to disassociate from any member for any reason. Regardless of any state-level injunctions etc.
The idea seems to be that it’s not a punishment handed down by the league, but a decision by the member institutions to disassociate with an institution they no longer want to be associated with. But clearly they have some concern that state courts could step in to stop that sort of action. Otherwise I don’t know why this federal lawsuit would be necessary.
re: What do the SEC bylaws say about removing a member institution?
Posted by lostinbr on 9/8/26 at 6:17 pm to Tiger Voodoo
Here is the actual bylaw:
quote:
3.1.5 Termination of Membership. Membership of a member may be terminated involuntarily at a meeting of the Chief Executive Officers. A vote of at least two-thirds of all the Chief Executive Officers is required to terminate membership. Any motion to terminate membership shall specify the effective date of the proposed termination. [Revised: 1/14/21]
quote:
Yeah, for what exactly though? They didnt dress or even roster the guys everyone was freaking out about. It would be one thing if they just played them sat. anyways but they didnt. So I'm really not getting what exactly the SEC is trying to punish LSU for.
I agree. But the real question stems from the next part:
quote:
Also if the SEC is going be ahead of compliance is Sanky just going to be judge jurry and executioner that university's are subject to without a chance to state their case to other members?
Sankey might be the judge and executioner, but the other 15 university presidents are the jury here. We’re talking about a vote of the member institutions, not a punishment handed down directly by the league office.
I haven’t read the SEC bylaws but I keep seeing it reported that a member can be expelled from the conference with a 2/3 vote. If it takes a 2/3 vote to expel a member, then surely lesser sanctions can also be implemented with a vote. So I think the question becomes: do they need a concrete rules violation to impose sanctions (or expulsion) if it goes to a vote? My guess is no.
re: Did LSU do something that we are unaware of?
Posted by lostinbr on 9/8/26 at 4:44 pm to studentsect
quote:
I'm not saying you're wrong, because there people are stupid, but this is a terrible test case if that is their plan. They aren't even challenging the whole court order, only as it applies to certain players that they have arbitrarily decided broke some secret rules that were more important than the other rules. If you want to go to war on the TRO system, the Chambliss case would've been the one to do it, because it's a single fairly unique case involving a straight-forward application of the rules.
I agree 100%. The only answers I can come up with for “why now” are:
1. The wave of media/public sentiment against LSU (based on flawed arguments/understanding of the nuances, but still) in this case.
2. A “straw that broke the camel’s back” type of scenario where maybe the SEC finally felt that enough is enough.
I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I just don’t know how this makes any sense for the conference except as an attempt to assert some bigger-picture power in the face of the state court systems.
re: Did LSU do something that we are unaware of?
Posted by lostinbr on 9/8/26 at 4:33 pm to Pikes Peak Tiger
After reading the original complaint and the amendment (at least the parts I could find on X; would like to read the whole thing) I’m starting to think this might about setting a new legal precedent, not necessarily about LSU specifically.
The argument in the original complaint appears to be something along the lines of:
“Even if there’s a court order preventing us from declaring these players ineligible, we still have a First Amendment right to freedom of association. That means we have a right to disassociate from universities who don’t share our values, regardless of what court orders are currently in place regarding individual players.”
My working theory is that the SEC is more trying to lay bigger-picture groundwork and create precedent that allows them to take some control back from the state courts. In that case I’d expect them to try to sanction LSU somehow to prove the point, but not actually seriously consider expulsion. Maybe that’s naive though.
If they are seriously considering expulsion, I’m with you.. it seems like there must be something else to the story here. It just doesn’t make sense otherwise. Sankey might very well be a man-child but we’re talking about a business that distributed a billion dollars to its members this year. It’s just insane, and it’s hard for me to believe they would cut their nose off to spite their face like that. Maybe I’m being naive though. :dunno:
The argument in the original complaint appears to be something along the lines of:
“Even if there’s a court order preventing us from declaring these players ineligible, we still have a First Amendment right to freedom of association. That means we have a right to disassociate from universities who don’t share our values, regardless of what court orders are currently in place regarding individual players.”
My working theory is that the SEC is more trying to lay bigger-picture groundwork and create precedent that allows them to take some control back from the state courts. In that case I’d expect them to try to sanction LSU somehow to prove the point, but not actually seriously consider expulsion. Maybe that’s naive though.
If they are seriously considering expulsion, I’m with you.. it seems like there must be something else to the story here. It just doesn’t make sense otherwise. Sankey might very well be a man-child but we’re talking about a business that distributed a billion dollars to its members this year. It’s just insane, and it’s hard for me to believe they would cut their nose off to spite their face like that. Maybe I’m being naive though. :dunno:
re: SEC Makes Amendment To Federal Case, Seeking Authority To Expel LSU From The League
Posted by lostinbr on 9/8/26 at 1:08 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
quote:
Kind of funny, they amended the filing to say that they are totally not suing "LSU"; they're just suing Rousse, Verge, Kiffin, and Lee Mallett.
Serious question - do they not have qualified immunity in their official capacities as president/AD/etc.?
re: SEC Makes Amendment To Federal Case, Seeking Authority To Expel LSU From The League
Posted by lostinbr on 9/8/26 at 10:57 am to MasterAbe1
quote:
Do they? Because they won’t like the skeletons in the closet of the rest of the conference either.
We weren’t the only ones recruiting these guys. Hell, South Carolina signed a kicker who was in a training camp last week.
I’d like to know how discovery actually works in a case like this. Does discovery extend to the other SEC member institutions?
In other words - if LSU’s defense is “all of the schools did the same thing and now they’re colluding to come after LSU,” do those programs’ text messages, phone records, etc. become subject to discovery or is it limited to the SEC itself?
re: Kiffin not happy with the band.
Posted by lostinbr on 9/8/26 at 8:04 am to ibldprplgld
quote:
There were several occurrences of delays Saturday night, even on Dixon’s call.
To be fair, I noticed several times that it was delayed on the TV broadcast as well (didn’t show first down until they were about to snap the ball).
It seems like ever since they changed the clock rules, officials have been a lot more focused on getting the ball spotted above all else. Wouldn’t shock me to find out that’s something they get graded on - amount of game clock elapsed waiting on spots.
I just watched a couple of plays out of curiosity. There was one in the 1st quarter where Green went out of bounds very close to a first down but the official spotted the ball about a foot short. The band started playing the first down song before the official even marked the spot. It wound up being second down (so the band guessed wrong), and the band still only finished the song like 3 seconds before the next snap. If they had actually waited for the spot, there’s no way they would have finished the song before the snap.
Just playing devil’s advocate for everyone saying the band should be ready. I don’t think it’s that simple. They could stop playing anything at all on close calls, only play when the result is clear, and start the song every time before the ref marks the spot. It wouldn’t matter.. they’d still be playing while the next play call goes in and they’d still be playing right up to the snap. It’s the nature of the beast with the tempo Lane wants to run. It’s just a different era.
quote:
This is my biggest problem with this whole mess. We not only have judges deciding rules/eligibility, we could now have them effectively forcing schools to roster certain players. That’s insane to me.
The operating assumption is that the coach not thing preventing LSU from rostering the players at this moment is the threat of SEC retaliation.
Think about it this way - the lawsuit is against the NCAA and SEC. The injunction says the NCAA and SEC can’t prevent these players from playing. The SEC and NCAA are associations with individual universities as members.
Imagine a scenario where the SEC told the judge “okay, we’ll allow the players to play.” They say, on paper, that the players are eligible. Then the member institutions get together behind closed doors and say “fine, we can call them eligible, but we all agree not to roster any of them.” That’s effectively no different than making a rule stating that they’re ineligible, and it would violate the court order.
If the SEC or NCAA is able to sidestep that by telling their member schools “fine, they can play but there will be hell to pay later if they do,” that’s the same thing. It defeats the purpose of the injunction. And if LSU, as a member university in the SEC, decides not to roster these players due solely to threat of SEC retaliation, that violates the court order.
If LSU chose not to roster the players due to other factors - talent, off-field issues, whatever - that would be completely different. But nobody believes there’s anything holding LSU back except the SEC right now.
re: Current NCAA 5 for 5 Transition Years Rules
Posted by lostinbr on 9/4/26 at 8:08 am to armytiger96
quote:
Well if you do the math there are 130+ FBS programs. If they each graduated 20 Srs last year that would be over 2000 football players that retroactively regained eligibility after everyone filled their 105 man rosters.
They did to protect current and incoming student athletes from getting "processed."
Except scholarship limits just increased from 85 to 105 last year (or in the case of the SEC, this year).
Additionally there’s no way the average is anywhere near 20 players per school. Keep in mind we aren’t talking about how many players ran out of eligibility - we are talking about how many players exhausted their 4th year of eligibility without ever having a redshirt year. That’s a much smaller number.
The NCAA may justify the distinction on the basis of protecting incoming freshman but I don’t buy that for a second. I think it’s more about not wanting to deal with the ramifications/chaos of tracking eligibility, transfers, etc. for players who were no longer enrolled. Well.. we see how that worked out for them.
quote:
by Combaro01
That account is suspect as frick. Multiple bumps of months-old posts with subtle references to various businesses. Every post reads like AI.
quote:
The organization says nearly 315,000 children as young as 10 were married in the U.S. between 2000 and 2021, mostly girls married to adult men.
What kind of clickbait bullshite is this?
The map shows that only 4 states allow marriage under the age of 15. And 2 of those 4 states have the “rate of child marriage” listed as “N/A.”
I found the actual data referenced in the article:
quote:
Nearly 315,000 minors were legally entered into marriage in the United States between 2000 and 2021. Eighty-six percent (86%) were girls, and most were wed to adult men an average of 4.02 years their senior.
Ninety-six percent (96%) of minors wed were aged 16 or 17, but some were as young as 10.
And then their graph has some weird scaling that makes 5 look like half of 1,158. :dunno:
That same organization says child marriages have decreased from 32,652 in 2000 to 1,717 in 2021. Even if we assume that the age distribution in 2021 was the same as the entire 22-year period (unlikely, it probably skews older due to changing laws), that would mean:
- About 12 people age 14 or younger get married each year in the US as of 2021
- About 1 person age 13 or younger gets married each year in the US as of 2021
It’s still fricking weird, but I don’t know that 17 year olds getting married is some huge societal issue - especially in states where 17 is the legal age of consent.
re: Flock camera map
Posted by lostinbr on 6/9/26 at 12:44 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
The 100% have the capability to feed into facial recognition but so far have led with "we only track cars" to get the entire system rolled out with support of naive citizens such as in this thread.
Yeah, I read an article about Flock selling their AI tools to a prison somewhere. Would have to dig it up, but if they can’t track people via facial recognition (among other methods) then I don’t see much point in using their service in a prison, where nobody is driving around.
I think the bigger concern about Flock is who they decide to sell access to, though. Right now they say it’s only government agencies/municipalities, businesses (e.g. for security purposes), and HOA’s. But tomorrow it could be insurance companies, advertisers, private investigators, employers, who knows?
They’re a private company building out infrastructure to track millions of Americans and analyze their movements. As far as I’m aware, there’s little/no legislation preventing them from selling access to whomever they please.
And it seems the government - or at least a good chunk of it - has little incentive to intervene because our law enforcement agencies have shifted toward using private companies as a workaround to bypass due process. Why get a warrant or subpoena for someone’s location data or browsing history when you just.. buy the information from Flock/data brokers without involving the courts at all?
It bothers me a bit that our society has just given up on the right to privacy. I feel like if you could go back in time to the early days of the internet and show people how all of this data is being used today, they’d see red flags everywhere. But now it’s been normalized to the point that the majority of the population simply doesn’t seem to give a shite.
Popular
18
