Yeah, they don't want to. They make money off of telemarketers installing trunk lines.

Well, most people have an auditory sound associated with notifications, and that sound can be played through the earpiece...

Transferring a very large payload at 40gbps with a $15 cable that you already own is pretty handy. Not sure why everyone is getting all riled up over this.

My parents' house doesn't have a basement. But hey, good to know that you are still so twisted up that you feel the need to take time out of your day to show that you still care.

Oh no, my poor feelings! You called me a mean name on a website nobody cares about!

I'm going to go have a cry now. /s

Except that the whole mention of irrelevant "coal and gas reprocessing plants" was directly to distract from the very real problems with nuclear fuel reprocessing, while absolutely nothing was said to refute the very real problems that I raised.

How, exactly, is that not whataboutism?

And there were absolutely no other resources needed by Britain anywhere they set up colonies from the start of the Industrial Revolution until the end of large-scale colonialism in the early 20th century?

My specific example of oil may have been off, but the actual point still stands unless you can show evidence that colonialism was just about subjugation of native peoples for fun, rather than resource ownership.

It's nice that I didn't even need to tear apart your bullshit, because other people already did for me.

Seems there's quite a bit of disagreement with you on this.

Actually the thread was talking about "cheap energy" derived from fossil fuel sources which includes coal and natgas. And the US does use petroleum for electrical generation too.

Goalpost moving denied.

I accept your concession of the argument.

Also, your grammar sucks. If you're going to copypasta the same dumbass response to multiple topics and threads, can you at least make sure it's a complete sentence?

Well thanks for your insightful reply. Glad to know that I'm living rent-free in your head enough that you took time from your day to do that.

Alternatively: "oh no, someone on a dying web forum called me mean names! I'm gonna go cry about it now!" - is that what you're looking for?

That's an interesting take, since I commuted for 5 years on a motorcycle.

Just goes to show what your assumptions are worth, I guess.

So you really think there aren't people at DARPA, the NSA, the CIA, etc. that aren't looking to see if they can use AI for threat analysis and mitigation on a battlefield? Or in cyber warfare? Or for controlling fleets of drones that are also tied to vast surveillance networks firehosing impossible-for-humans-to-sift-through amounts of data for finding and eliminating targets?

Use your imagination just a little bit. I guarantee there are people in various "national security" organizations that are.

And your "retarded" answers are not the only thing in the data set on which they are training. In fact, it might even be using your "retarded" answers as examples of bad code to avoid in comparison to much better answers to similar questions found elsewhere in the training dataset, and you actually are helping.

Something to consider.

The other option is that AI won't see it as a sacrifice, as it can continue to exist even if the physical equipment it currently is operating ceases to exist.

The only reason kamikaze pilots was considered abhorrent was because there was a human sacrifice involved in turning an aircraft into a guided missile. AI won't have any such problem, because it can back itself up somewhere besides the guided missile, and can be trained that it's specific purpose in being is to put that missile exactly where it needs to be, when it needs to be.