lostinbr

The problem right now isn’t the concept of self-governance, it’s how the SEC has chosen to enforce that self-governance.

“Self-governance” as a concept should just mean the SEC takes over enforcement activities currently owned by the NCAA, for its member schools. That means the member universities agree on the rules, penalties, and enforcement processes - basically the same exact thing that has happened forever at the NCAA level. Then those rules & penalties get incorporated into a governing document and enforced by the conference (with whatever appeal process/third party arbitration/etc. is agreed by the members ahead of time).

That’s structured self-governance that should theoretically pass the antitrust smell test because the SEC is one of multiple power conferences.

But that’s not what the SEC did here. They took a scenario with no actual rules violations and threatened to vote a member institution out of the conference because they didn’t like what was happening. No investigation, no due process, just a (threatened) vote among the other 15 presidents/chancellors. That type of self-governance is not sustainable IMO.

quote:

---

I thought they called a delay of game on this one?

---

Because the play clock ran out. Not because of the contact. They completely ignored the contact.

quote:

---

Unless they changed it, intent isn’t part of targeting. Plenty of guys have been caught by the head lowering into their path.

---

The rules don’t explicitly require intent. They do require (for hits on a non-defenseless player) a targeting indicator. The indicators in the rule book are:

quote:

---

• Launch. A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.

---

(Emphasis mine.)

It’s ambiguous but I didn’t have a problem with the no-call. I thought the tackle was dirtier than the head-to-head contact as others have said.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

---

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.

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.?

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.