If you have some insight into (checks notes) "Jedis" then write a summary of that insight here and not just try to create traffic to your video. If you have something to say, say it here, in writing. A "watch my video to make my point" always gets a hard no from me. Minutes of my life I never get back and all that.

Right you are. You can get a publication out of a monocausal theory to explain the Fermi Paradox, so every time a real or (in this case) supposed danger of technology comes up it gets proposed as the explanation of the Fermi Paradox, all of which fail to understand Fermi's original insight.

To explain the apparent absence of extraterrestrial intelligence, under the assumption that the evolution of species similar in abilities to humans is common in the Milky Way, these "explanations" have to apply to every such species. This is what makes the Fermi Paradox a paradox. There cannot be a single one that escapes the supposed filter or otherwise it would fill the galaxy in a cosmically and geological brief time, even if you use a very slow model of the spread. Why would some particular filter happen to every species everywhere? The notion that every species would have a nuclear war that wipes it out, or creates "grey goo" nanotech, or is destroyed by super AI - and that does not itself become a space faring civilization - as if it was a physical law that cannot be escaped (like the speed of light limit) is not really a theory, it is a science fiction story premise. It would rise to the level of a theory if they could show a plausible reason why it would be universal, but no one pedalling these papers attempts to do that, most likely because they can't.

Then there is a trope that gets repeated when this subject comes up that we have only "one data point of evidence" bearing on this subject -- which sounds like a wise observation... until you think about it carefully. In terms of the development of human-like intelligence we have had an astronomical number of experiments conducted by evolution with animals here on Earth over the last 400 million years. Whether you use the number of separate animal-years, or animal-species-years, or number total number of animal species that have ever existed, and even if you throw out all the insect species, you still end up with an astronomical number of data points where human-style intelligence never developed. And if you take a "micro-look" just at the mammal lineages that finally led to humans there is no evident tendency to develop human-type intelligence. Our closest living relative species (the other Great Apes) developed dexterity, social organization, and intelligence similar to early Homo several million years ago and have shown no tendency to develop further toward Homo capabilities. Even with Homo what we suspect from the fossil evidence is that a peculiar combination of environmental events cause an abrupt progression to having much larger forebrains and the development of language and symbolic thought -- no indication of inevitability can be seen.

This evidence suggests that human style intelligence is a very low probability event, something that is astronomically rare. And at the same time the fact that we can now study a large number of exo-planet systems (over 4000 systems confirmed to date) has given us hard data to estimate how frequently Earth-like planets really are. The developing science here suggests that we are a "rare Earth" indeed. The combination of planet system configuration (with a single large Jupiter) and early large Moon formation, in the Goldilocks zone around a non-flaring single star is very uncommon -- thus far we do not have a single candidate system that matches the minimum requirements, which does not even include the improbable Moon filter. So Earth-like planets are rare, and human-like species are incredibly unlikely even when one occurs, starts making the case that the expected number of planets with civilizations is itself a very small number.

You show yourself entirely out of your depth. We cannot currently simulate the behavior of a single natural neuron. The extremely simple functions that create chatbots by scraping and assigning weights to the words of a billion people have only a very remote relationship to the behavior of even the simplest natural neural systems.

That runs on water.. But, hey, he has GPUs to sell so anything goes. Its not like he will have to pay a penalty in five years when no AGI shows up, but he will have pocketed money from the hype.

Currently we are making no measurable progress toward AGI, so there is nothing to extrapolate from to say when of if it will ever appear, much less in five years.

We have the existence proof of biological systems that it is possible, and good reason to think that we can eventually replicate the functionality of natural biological systems closely enough to create a synthetic equivalent. So there very good reason to believe it will eventually be done, but we are still trying to understand what the problems that need to be solved are, we are far from coming up with any solutions to them, and have no way to estimate when we might succeed except to say, realistically, enormously more work has to be done than has been done to date.

The Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) was replaced by Solid State Phased Array Radar System (SSPARS) because Russia still has ICBMs. The system still emits narrow band, narrow beam, high power radar pulses.

A billionaire's hobby. Nothing much more than that. It teaches us nothing, goes nowhere, and will die with Thiel, or if he gets bored with it.

Often not, and even when it does it is nothing like the cost to the female.

Normally having a real lady do it IS the benefit. That's why you have video sex services. And the real lady can also run a scam equally well - it is unusual that you actually meet such a person in the flesh.

>

You aren't thinking creatively (or suspiciously) here. Personal information is worth hard cash - how much depends who (and how many) you are willing to sell it to, Consider the kind o personal information a bot posing as a "girlfriend" could collect. First it builds up the sucker, err client, creates a feeling of trust, then starts creating the urge to share more information to "impress" the "girlfriend" and get emotional rewards for doing so. To amp this up provide a hot semi-animated GenAI image, which changes its appearance perhaps to entice the client.

If someone feels the need to have a girlfriend they are ripe for scamming. Lonely hearts scams are the oldest in the book.

None of that matters.

If he wrote a history under NSA auspices it would be classified regardless of much of the material being about public developments. Recall that they successfully suppressed material in 1967 all of which was about publicly available information. Recall also the large amount of formerly classified stuff that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s that Kahn never wrote about - the electro-mechanical crypto machines which were the backbone of spy work into the 1990s. It is a fact that Kahn never published a significant update on his 1967 book.

Also, although the NSA does naturally rely on the open literature on cryptography they have in addition their own math geniuses doing highly classified work on top of it. I recall that when the NSA recommended new public crypto-standards, which they had deliberately undermined, academic researchers found evidence that the weakening was so specific that it hinted that the NSA had a theory of the algorithms that was unknown to the outside world.

What do you suppose that journalist-historian was doing as an NSA Fellow for 15 years? Little or nothing has emerged about that. We know that classified agencies hire historians to have classified histories written about them - the CIA has that, Betty Perkins at Los Alamos wrote a whole series of histories about nuclear weapon development, which only one has ever been releases in any form (very heavily redacted).

The Codebreakers was a ground-breaking, deeply informative and fascinating work when it was finished and published in 1967, although parts of it were removed and never published due to government pressure so it was not entirely up-to-date to the public state of knowledge even for 1967.

So the enormous Second World War codebreaking operations, the work of Turing and Bletchley Park, Engima, and knowledge of crypto-machines generally is absent as this information did not start coming out until several years later. And the vast changes driven by computers and algorithmic advances are nowhere to be seen. So it would have been wonderful if Kahn had updated his work, which remains very much historical -- more or less the story of cryptography and codebreaking before the modern era.

In fact he may have done just this. Only we can't read it or even know of its existence because it is so highly classified. After the publication of The Codebreakers the NSA found a more effective way to suppress the publication of code-knowledge by this gifted historian -- they hired him. Not right away, but when we might have hoped he would produce a The Codebreakers II to cover the dramatic changes of the preceding 30 years in 1995 he became a scholar-in-residence at the NSA. When his original work was republished a year later it had a cursory add on chapter that skimmed the developments since, but did not rise to the level of an actual history of them and provided no knew insights to the subject. He maintained his NSA ties for the next 15 years.

This was an end-of-life test, operating JET above its design power level for the highest power level of any tokamak ever to date: 13 MW for 5.2 seconds. It had Q=0.33 because this was not its most efficient power level.

This is 2.6% of ITER's power level for about 1% of its planned operating cycle time -- quite impressive for what is strictly a laboratory instrument. JET will always have a legendary status in fusion power history as it provided the design data and proof of scaling principles used to design ITER, which will be engineering test bed for a full scale power plant.

Wow, you are really making stuff up bigly. Good work coward!

Since dams create artificial lakes that entirely destroy all of the habitat on the submerged land it is odd that you regard damming up rivers as being particularly benign, and opposition to destroying such habitats particularly deluded.

A 2% reduction in insolation only reduces the output of solar power plants by 2%. So you build 2% more of them to compensate. Do you even read the TFS?