Here's the obvious solution that none of these companies will implement. Don't create an AI that purports to know anything. They don't. Instead, make one that can explain it's answers or reasoning and doesn't pretend to understand anything.
Nobody knows how to do that, at least not for a model of useful size. It would have to be reasoning in order to explain, but they aren't doing that.
The speed sensitive cruise control systems should not permit you to choose a following distance which is so excessively close.
They don't. That is one of the chief complaints about adaptive cruise control systems by people
The systems do in fact allow you to choose less than 3 seconds' following distance. People are literally complaining that the system won't let them drive unsafely.
The more space you have between cars the faster you can safely move on the road in question which also means the higher the road capacity.
The faster you go, the more space you need between cars to maintain safe following distance. If I have a safe following distance between me and the car ahead, if someone merges into that space then I no longer have safe following distance, so now we need even more space. At commute times there is not enough road available for all the cars to have safe following distance at speed. This is what happens on any overutilized road. If you wait for that much distance to appear then traffic backs up at the point of entry.
From the standpoint of wanting something reasonably factual, I am pretty sure it would be dumb to rely on any AI that's using Tweets as the main part of its training data set.
The story and dialogue I'll give you that. However the action sequences not believable? Star Wars is milestone in the special effects department. Nothing had ever looked that good before and it still looks good today. Twenty years later Lucas started releasing the special editions with his shoe horned CGI scenes and they look awful.
Have you watched THX 1138? It's pretty hard scifi compared to anything else Lucas has done. But movies like that have a limited draw.
The only reason Big Social exists at all is to surreptitiously collect data.
There is nothing "surreptitious" about it.
Collecting and selling data is the very core of their business plan.
None of the big tech companies sell data.
Why pose this as a hypothetical scenario when it's an established fact?
Because it isn't an established fact.
Perhaps you are shocked to hear that people disagree with you because they formerly had no voice, not because "open society is failing."
It is hypocritical to demand that "open society" be protected by silencing those you don't like.
Make it illegal to sell the data
None of the big tech companies sell tracking data.
Yeah and big oil is still stifling that 100 mile per gallon carburetor.
This does remind me of another Slashdot featured article where there was a claim that breast cancer treatments were "racist" for being less effective for those with African ancestry.
You have a link handy? I can find no evidence of any stories about cancer treatment being racist.
I have a suggestion to the "meatless Monday" advocates. I suggest instead making a call for "meatless Fridays". How would changing the day of the week make any difference? There's already a religious custom among popular religions that is in agreement with this practice, that means there would be less opposition. Of course those wanting others to eat less meat aren't going to take this suggestion seriously, because they worship a different deity. News that not enough meat in the diet could put people at risk of cancer is going to piss these people off in a serious way. I'm going to enjoy hearing them scream about this.
Oh lord you're one of those loons who thinks some secret world government is going to force everyone to eat insects. Somehow I don't think that skipping meat for one day a week will give anyone cancer.
This would be in opposition to what the USDA approved diet would indicate since so many calories would be from fats and oils and relatively few from the bread and whatever few vegetables might be in the burger.
It will depend on the size of the patty and the size/type of the bun, of course, but the calories in the patty might be closer to the bread than you think. A brioche bun, for example, can run about 200 calories. A quarter pound of hamburger is around 240 calories. Depending on the toppings, you might be adding more fat and/or sugar calories to the mix - cheese and mayo will mainly be fat calories, bbq sauce will be sugar.
Also, the "food pyramid" went out of favor about two decades ago - nowadays they talk about MyPlate. There's a lot more emphasis on fruits and vegetables now.
Yes, because all of the other things which are illegal have had the incentive to do them reduced to zero.
It makes it feasible to punish the biggest offenders, who are engaging in the bulk of the crime. Whether it actually happens is another question, but at least it does sometime.
Prove it. Show me the source code.
Very complex computer software
Nope. It is very simple computer software. Just a huge tensor of low-precision floating point numbers and a handful of differential equations.
The fact that A.I. can "hallucinate" things is proof of this.
The fact that you think a generative-LLM has anything whatsoever to do with aircraft control shows your knowledge of AI is less than zilch. You have some unlearning to do to get to zero.
Modern AI still experiences hallucinations though.
Generative LLMs experience hallucinations.
No one is suggesting LLMs fly aircraft or drive cars.
Humans are FAR from 99.9999% reliable
There are 1.3 fatal accidents per million departures for commercial aviation.
I expect the military will use any per-unit savings to build more unmanned fighters.
That's a decision made by Congress, not the military.
They're not gonna let the defense budget go down for any reason whatsoever.
That's also a congressional decision. The military doesn't set the defense budget.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
