Can we stop treating Artificial Intelligence like it's a movie protagonist/villain?

The best of these are "expert systems" that can accomplish certain tasks, but they have no will or motivation of their own. At most they are HAL 9000, which was simply following programming. HAL was killing the humans that were an impediment to completing it's mission. They are not SkyNet, self-aware and deciding to kill all humans because: reasons.

We need to build the rules to fit the tools or we will create situations that will be exploited by corporations. I do like the "no weapons" rule, but how about a "no build" rule as well.

No AI can build another AI / AI process. Any AI that tries to spawn another AI / AI process is erased.

Not to knock your idea, but if you have a cell phone, you're tracked. Not even a sooper smart phone from Apple or the Googles, just a regular old cell phone with bluetooth... which is EVERY phone available for LTE and later. That's before license plate scanners, other people's Ring (and similar) home surveillance equipment, highway cameras, city traffic cams, and more.

Anyone that wanted to avoid a dystopian tracking future missed it by about 30 years when they kept voting in Corporatists who bow before pretty much everything corporations want enacted, or avoided.

Personally I'm just cheap / "if it ain't broke don't try to fix it" kind of person. I've got plenty of things I could spend my money on, so why buy a vehicle unless he RoI benefits me. I've always kept my cars for a LONG time, at least until ridiculously high mileage assuming it didn't become a money pit. Why? I wanted to spend the money on other things. I don't care if I have a "cool" car, never did care in fact. A car / truck is a tool for me, nothing more or less.

1) An AI may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) An AI must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) An AI must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

While a bit of a joke, it could be considered a starting point.

As far as legal liability, all should be borne by the entity deploying it AND the people in charge of the entity. You can't claim to be indispensable to the company to collect a big paycheck, then scurry off when liability rears it's head. You want the big money, you got to have skin in the game. However it wouldn't be fair to consider previous assets, so the only thing at risk is the value of your current (entire) compensation package.

Although you might have to be careful... if your previous company is sued for actions that happened under your leadership you might be liable if they can prove your decisions created a dangerous situation.

You don't want team blue - they are marginally better at some items but worse at other items - and forget them regarding the taming of corporate excesses... most of team blue is corporate shills. No, you want Team Progressive. Them "durty soshulists" that will regulate corporations. Team blue corporate shills target progressives just as must as Republicans. Corporate money PACs aligned with Team Blue will attack any progressive to beat them down for any other candidate.

Team Red or Team Blue... Gotta protect the corporations. No matter if it is TFG, DeSantis, Biden, Pelosi, and so on.

Apologies I use full stop in the old morse perspective - Boy Scout. Normally I'd put them at the end of a comment.

As someone who spent a decade building test fixtures for everything from power meters to radios to game consoles to vr displays to medical imaging systems - NO electronics are trivial. A half-penny (per 100,000) part is just as likely to fail as the 25 cent part, one dollar chip, or 500 dollar microprocessor. ANY extra complexity increases cost, and removing complexity removes cost. Taking out a half penny part that's no longer needed will reduce time in construction (either pth or pick n place), reduce flow issues, reduce time in xray, reduce time in "final assembly", and improve initial pass rate for both in-circuit testing / quality assurance. Taking out 3 parts improves all of those by an even larger number.

I doubt it'll even register for most people. Those most affected (i.e. non-satellite users) are the least likely to buy a new vehicle to notice. Even by us, where the TV reception is crap and many people have crappy intarwebs / cell service, the only "old" people without satellite reception at home are extremely old... as in >75yo. That's if they don't have kids / grandkids to take care of the service. Many of them don't even drive themselves anymore. My grandparents had a car they kept until the end, about 20 years. They rarely drove themselves, and only during the daytime, so there was no point in spending (in their mind) a RIDICULOUS amount of money on a new or used vehicle. By the time my grandmother passed the car I think it still had less than 50,000 miles.

The full stop statement actually is a "for" argument.

Not even because they "should" per se but simply because they were supplanted by advancing technology. The only reason they held as long as they did was lower cost. Radios were already engineered and changing them would cost money. New "entertainment systems" are being redone regularly, in this time of rapid changes. Look at Sync vs Sync II if you want a hint. A VFD? and USB1.1 versus a color LCD display and USB 2. That's before Sync III having USB or Wireless with a bigger display optional, and so on. That's less than a decade.

If Ford thought any real number of buyers would be up in arms over this, especially rural buyers, they'd be tripping over themselves to keep them in F Series pickups.

They won't be truly happy until they're burning coal and petrol! Solar power is unreliable and worse: just some silly hippy dream. Get those people some natural gas!

Fossil fuels are the future!

/snicker

This is nothing, it was dystopian over a decade ago but nobody (*cough*except progressives*cough*) wants to regulate corporations.

You carry a cell phone? A tablet? Not even a fancy schmancy smart phone, just one that has bluetooth for a headset. Congratulations! The Nordstrom, Macy's, JC Penney, Aldi, Publix, Festival, Victoria's Secret, et al., can tell you were there, and likely has your name / address available. They can even tell how long you spend in a spot down to about 4-8 feet. They can even tell when you pull into their parking lot at many chains.

They'll know what you buy, and tie it to you with the credit card, obviously. However, because of that phone after cross-referencing, they'll be able to tell what you buy... even if you use cash.

You missed "dystopian" by at least 2 decades. Try voting for people that will regulate corporations, and not just because they disagree with them over a social issue while running for president.

A dirt simple technology that's susceptible to high frequency interference like electric motors and battery charging. Tack on that it's a minimally used "dirt simple technology" that requires some A level engineering to "fix" every couple years a new media center (entertainment system) is built into the car model(s) making it a cost headache. Oh and if that "fix" doesn't work due to an after design engineering change for recall/safety reasons? Well time to break out the wallet again to fix that "dirt simple technology" that only a tiny percentage will care about.

The cost / benefit isn't there or Ford would be tripping over themselves to keep it on their F series of pickups.

What? Engineering is a PITA, full stop.

Also implementing pulse dialing is nothing because it involves no real engineering in a physical sense, no extra chips. Also listening for clicks instead of DTMF was implemented because they couldn't roll out new phones and switches nationwide at the same time, nor was AT&T still the lord and master of all.

Finally, to be fair, if AT&T had still been lord and master of all phone services, you might not see pulse at all today. AT&T would've killed it off to save one thousandth of a cent per subscriber.

Pulse recognition costing extra WOULD mean companies would've killed it by now. Here's a better example: You don't see 800Mhz analog phone support anymore on the major networks. You don't see 3G data support anymore on the major networks. Extra cost killed it off.

Next thing you'll hear is someone lamenting the loss of ISDN as a service option in most areas.

Moderating disagree is fine, because not everyone wants to take the time to respond.

Yeah but unlike AM radio you might end up requiring the usage of a jack and spare tire. However to be completely fair, not all cars come with a jack and spare tire. I had a Golf R (2019, Mk. 7.5) that did not come with those items.

Yes AM does take up extra room, and does cost extra, especially on a hybrid or electric vehicle. That's before the engineering cost. Ford, in particular, tends to use the same version media system in all of the same generation cars.

I further love the invocation of "first responders" by the article to try and gin up support. I asked my friend, an engineer at one of the companies that makes: fire trucks, Airport Rescue Fire-Fighting Vehicles, command vehicles, tow trucks, refuse trucks, concrete trucks, and more. He still knows several people from the ambulance division they sold to another company many years back. They joked about removing old fashioned radios, and AM has been gone for years because the companies fretted the decision initially. Change isn't really appreciated in some ways by some people. In the end nobody noticed because nobody really cared about the opinion of the (very few) people who actually gave a crap.

I personally don't care if they end up keeping it, but I can see why they'd want it gone. A niche product that most people don't give two shakes about and costs extra to keep around? Pitch it.

Only a couple media companies, a tiny minority (less than they say) of people glued to talk radio, and politicians, really give a crap. The real problem is that the media companies and that subset of politicians is TERRIFIED those people might tune into someone else for a change. The media companies lose advertising dollars, and politicians might have their voters hearing something that contradicts the party line.

That's been a problem at some places. One of my friend's had a kid in high school who had the owner taking all the tips. I made sure everyone knew that the owner did that and magically tipping stopped at that place.

During the pandemic I remember some moron put a sign that said "Tip, tip double tip!" My friend put it succinctly in another sign: "Pay your employees dimwits."

I remember hearing, constantly, "Nobody wants to work anymore." I started asking people for things based on the location. At one diner I offered to pay $2 for an $5 dessert. They refused. I said, "Nobody wants to sell food anymore!" She didn't get the joke at first, but it slowly dawned on the owner. She wasn't too happy and started yammering about costs. "Ma'am, I own my own business and if you can't get staff, it's not because everyone suddenly became lazy. You can't make the bills? Then maybe your business plan is flawed."

^ This. ^

I'm not rich, well-connected, and so on, meaning that if I broke the law like she did I'd be rotting in prison.

Not like she's going to a Supermax anyway, let her sit in the country club prison for the full sentence. I know, I know... because she's rich and well-connected she'll be lucky to serve half... if she even has to show up at all.

After it became clear that they would fail if they openly called for temperance (banning alcohol) they very quickly ended that idea. Instead they've pushed for ever lower limits and raising the age. Did you know that they want .04 now? They'll accept .06 but they really want 0.0 on the way to banning alcohol overall. Alcohol is evil dontchaknow?

States go along with it now because it's great revenue and helps the private prison system.

Umm, no. Do you not see arrest reports of how many religious nuts get caught with sex workers? Yes even homosexual sex workers.

https://ministrywatch.com/wisc...

https://www.pillarcatholic.com...

https://www.sltrib.com/news/20...

https://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01...

https://www.newsweek.com/male-...

That's not even close to complete list, and leaves out many of the less savory things in most of them... like child sexual abuse. People like that want to control the others so they can't be exposed as hypocrites. After all, if everyone thinks that durty woman is a whoor that can't be believed then her allegations carry less weight, if she'll even risk making the accusation... or he if it's a gay male prostitute.

That's what you defend, whether you like to admit it or not AC. You're defending a culture of fear promoted by disgusting human filth that simply wants to victimize others.