NATO risking nuclear war with Russia is the actual short-sighted strategy.
Is there some other strategy that is better? It's hard to see what the "wise" strategy would be for dealing with an aggressive nuclear-armed dictatorship that may or may not be collapsing politically.
Certainly "let Russia do what it wants because they might nuke us otherwise" feels a lot like paying the Dane-geld; as soon as they realized that was our strategy, they'd control us with it.
I often piss people off when I say this, but without humans being killed, war has very little purpose.
The purpose would be to bankrupt your opponent; once they no longer have the resources to manufacture more battle-robots, your robots can march to the capital and take it over.
Is John Cage's famous minimalist piece acceptable?
If not, how will they prevent people from playing it?
Who paid a lot of money for the fossil fuel infrastructure?
If you've ever bought gas, you helped pay for it.
Even if you never bought any gas, your tax dollars paid for some of it, in the form of subsidies.
Really the only reliable way to prevent an AI from giving out a particular type of info is to avoid training it on that info. Eg if you donâ(TM)t want your AI giving out bomb-making instructions, donâ(TM)t train it on bomb-making instructions.
Of course, removing harmful info from the training sets at scale is its own tough problem; maybe they could train an AI to do that.
Yeah, doesnâ(TM)t everyone? The problem is itâ(TM)s very easy to be a bad C++ developer, and thereâ(TM)s a long twisty road to travel before you can be a good one.
Rust is similar, except the bad Rust programmers will spend more of their time battling the compiler and less of their usersâ(TM) time discovering runtime bugs caused by avoidable programming errors.
Unless we find some "glitches" in the Matrix (like déja vu was in the movie)
Dude, I swear I see it happen right here all the time.
"respect the wishes of the picture subject and the copyright holder"
You can certainly make an argument for the former, but as for the latter, the copyright holder in this case has been aware of the image's use for decades and taken no action to defend their copyright. Case law on this is clear: they have no claim at this point. Further, the implication of legitimate academic and research use over the course of several decades would itself make any copyright claim difficult at best. At this point, it is highly unlikely that the wishes of the copyright holder matter, from a legal perspective.
We did pay a lot of money to build out that fossil fuel infrastructure; it would be nice to find a way to keep using it that also reduces or eliminates CO2 emissions. Discarding it would be wasteful.
Not only that but someone, having spotted this reoccurring hallucination, had turned that made-up dependency into a real one, which was subsequently downloaded and installed thousands of times by developers as a result of the AI's bad advice, we've learned.
If you're married, then you know that sometimes this kind of thing can be worth it just to avoid starting another argument.
The Portland-based utility — part of billionaire Warren Buffett's conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway — agreed to remove the aging dams after determining it would be less expensive than trying to bring them up to current environmental standards. The dams were used purely for power generation, not to store water for cities or farms.
The dam will never produce so much as a watt of clean power ever again.
On the other hand, Apple took in around $276,700,000 in net profit today, and will do so again tomorrow, and the next day, and so on for the forseeable future, so I think they'll be okay.
You could also look at it from the other direction: many common tasks are designed to be performed using a pair of human hands.
To be fair, Musk seems to go out of his way to provoke that hatred. If heâ(TM)d just stick to his engineering and leave the anti-semitism to the professional bigots, heâ(TM)d generate a lot less blowback.
"It is hard to overstate the debt that we owe to men and women of genius." -- Robert G. Ingersoll
