I agree with what you're saying here... I very much want anti-trust enforcement for these reasons and more. I'm just unconvinced that this case is going to make corporations sit up and take notice.
Poe's Law is hitting hard with this one. I honestly can't tell if you're serious or sarcastic.
I do believe serious anti-trust enforcement would help with inflation, but I'm skeptical that this is the signal that they're getting serious.
The Moto G series didn't do this before. I liked them because they were okay phones with a fairly clean Android install and great battery life. They included some junk like wallpapers, their tutorials, and "dolby atmos" audio tuning, but no adware / third party sponsored crap. Unfortunately it looks like they're going the Samsung route now.
We, as a culture, need to stop promoting and hiring based on things other than merit.
Boeing's problems aren't due to hiring the wrong color people. This is happening because McDonnell Douglas's predatory management took over the company and prioritized short-term profits over making top-tier products.
There are countless problems with this study. How about: People who are asked to self-report what they eat to strangers might be more likely to lie about what they eat to seem more healthy. In which case, any correlation with outcomes is meaningless.
There's no problem with control if you don't give it too much power.
The not-very-subtle issue is that regardless of the limits put on hardware, the people using the hardware may not be subject to effective limits. Which is how we got Putin, Hitler, Trump, Pol Pot, McCarthy, McConnell, Stalin, Mao, etc.
People have a disturbing habit of taking up crazy and harmful ideas regardless of the source. All an AI really has to do is source the ideas. There will be people who will be delighted to take it from there.
Major Pain would like a word.
The point is, that there is no sound scientific basis for claiming "it is all just known Physics" at this time
Since everything, literally everything, we think we understand today has fallen squarely into "100% just known physics", yes, we can have pretty high confidence that the things we learn tomorrow will do the same. I do agree it is (vaguely, hand-wavingly, extremely low-order probability) possible we might need some new physics, but given the physical constraints of our fleshy machinery, (a) it seems really, really unlikely and (b) without discovering a mechanism that requires same, there's little point in claiming that is the case.
At various points in time we didn't understand X, but later on, we did understand X, and every time that threshold is crossed, the answer has been "100% known physics." To say that because we don't understand Y yet means "might not be known physics" seems to slyly imply that it might not be physics at all, which our experience with reality does not support. Just in case you were leaning that way.
While it would be magnificently interesting to find something that does not fall into that classification, no one has done that yet, and there's no particular reason to expect anyone to, either. Because it has never happened.
We don't know how the brain works or what consciousness even is. Until we figure those out there will not be any real progress towards strong AI
It's worth noting that some developments come from somewhat randomly throwing things at the wall to see if they stick. Often, those doing the throwing are just as surprised as the rest of us when something does stick.
Consider: To have a machine (a robot, more or less) formed as human arm throw a baseball well, the usual approach takes some really heavy math. We, on the other hand, do it without understanding that math at all. There are a lot of folks working on various approaches to what we can loosely call "computational intelligence", and it is possible (not saying likely, just possible) that this will result in an intelligence.
After all, that's how nature did it. Multiple times. In multiple ways. Without knowing how intelligence worked.
Hackers of the world, unite!