Not everywhere. The paper claims that Canada looks like it will have a net 5-20% boost to GDP thanks to climate change.

Heâ(TM)s arguably not wrong that VMwareâ(TM)s offerings outside of their core product are kind of inchoate(though, in fairness, itâ(TM)s not like the âhyperscale cloudâ(TM) guys donâ(TM)t all have a stable of shit thrown at the wall to see what sticks that surrounds the core of services that people actually care about or trust); but that seems like a pretty shabby excuse in this context; where it would have been trivial to just not fuck with what people were using and liked while making the alleged investments in glorious future VMware; then letting the value proposition of that help sell it.

As it is, itâ(TM)s hard to read this as anything other than an awkward(and almost certainly temporary, nobody ever genuinely stops trying to boil the frog once they start); climbdown after recklessly spooking more customers, harder, than intended.

No, at least not without chemical assistance or mental issues which, in either case, means that the brain in question is not functioning properly.

No, it may sound logical but it is not actually using any logic. All it is doing is predicting what text is most appropriate to add next. It is not doing what a human would which is have some concepts in mind and then struggle to find the correct words to express or explain those concepts. Current AI is exactly like a parrot: it can mimic human writing - and yes do so insanely well - but that is all it is doing mimicing, or in some case just flat out copying. That can, and indeed does, give an extremely powerful illusion that AI somehow comprehends what it is writing but at no point is the AI recognizing a concept and then trying to express that concept in words as a human would.

They mean safe for Microsoft to release. I suspect they still remember their earlier Tay AI chatbot that after a short contact with the internet was spouting neo-nazi hate propaganda and swearing like a sailor.

The one time you can generally guarantee that corporations will have extensive and effective safety checks is when it comes to protecting their bottom line.

Yes it is but I will note that the human brain is the result of 3.5 billion years of evolution building and training it. We've got to where we are with AI in under 100 years since the first electronic computers while it took nature 3 billion years from the start of life to figure out multicellular organisms let alone human-level intelligence. We may have a lot further to go to match what nature has achieved but we are catching up at an incredible rate and it is hard not to believe that before long we will exceed nature's achievements.

Really? While AIs can certainly generate perfect sounding English the fact that they frequently hallucinate suggests that they have absolutely zero understanding of what they are writing....either that or they are a lot more intellligent that we realize and they deliberately lie a lot to stop us finding out, in which case they are really doing a great job!

Compare that to just the first verse of Modern Major General from Gilbert and Sullivan in 1879 and you can see how far we have simplified things:

I am the very model of a modern Major-General
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical
About binomial theorem I am teeming with a lot o' news
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse

No, because that was not the argument you were making. You said that requiring people driving expensive cars to pay more for their insurance would cause more people to drive cheaper, badly maintained and hence more dangerous cars. My counterpoint was that this would have no effect because many people were already driving the cheapest legal cars possible and that what mattered in regards to this safety concern was the minimum safety standards enforced on vehicles.

So, just because you seem a little confused, lets agree to the bleedingly obvious that if you do not properly maintain your car it will become less safe to drive and try to focus on your original point which was that charging higher insurance rates for more expensive cars would somehow (your claim, not mine) lead to significantly more dangerous and poorly maintained cars on the road which is something that you have completely failed to explain or justify.

For exactly the same reasons as biological life: the wider you spread out the less risk that you will be wiped out by a natural event. Sure some AIs may not want to expand but that's the same for natural species as well. There is no reason I can see why an AI civilization would be more or less likely to expand than a natural one.

No, relativity does not work like that. If you are "some number" of light years away then with relativistic time dilation you can only travel "some number" of years into the future, not thousands. While you can be thousands of light years away in our galaxy even this is not an argument for not seeing anything because evolution occurs on the timescale of millions of years this means that an alien intelligence could well have been travelling around for millions of years already making the few tens of thousands of light year distances possibly in the galaxy no reason for us not to have seen anything given that we have no visit in recorded history that extends back at least ~1000 years.

So either visits are very infrequent or there is no one visiting....or transmitting.

It's also an argument that does not explain anything. All it does is replace natural intelligence with artificial intelligence at which point all that has changed is that instead of first contact with a naturally evolved species we would make first contact with an artificial intelligence. So what is filtering out the AIs?

If you are trying to explain why we haven't detected any aliens, how is "they were massacred by even more advanced aliens" a remotely adequate answer? That just leaves you with "why haven't we detected the even more advanced aliens?". The question was never "why do we detect so many deathbots and so few little green men?"

If anything, superintelligences are presumably more capable of doing high-visibility things(if they want to) by virtue of being more advanced; and, while they could all be carefully hiding because they're paranoid that same explanation would hold for standard aliens as well.

Seems like an awful lot of hypothesis to explain nothing.

I suspect the more likely plan is that this is a test of the precision formation technology they will need to build orbital gravitational wave detectors like LISA that will be sensitive to a different region of the GW spectrum that current ground-based detectors.

The _main_ point is to test precision positioning of satellites, not make shadows. For example, one very good scientific use of precision formations is that there are plans to have orbital gravitational wave detectors such as LISA. This will require three satellites flying in a very precise formation creating a triangular interferometer with 2.5 million km arms. This should be sensitive to difference frequencies of gravitational waves than the current earth based detectors like LIGO.

Well they asked for it by calling what they are doing an eclipse. An eclipse is defined as one celestial body obscuring the illumination from another. Similarly, putting one object into the shadow of another is not an eclipse unless those objects are planets or moons. This is why we don't call holding our hand up to shade our eyes or standing under a tree on a sunny day a solar eclipse.