That is unmitigated, blinder-driven nonsense.

Art can be an expression of joy; of nothing; of interest; of form; of function... and it can still be art, even *great* art, no matter if some particular critic or consumer finds it unworthy, or not. It can be found in paintings, weapons, carved shells, code, fiction, sexuality, clothing, history, religion, philosophy, architecture, pottery, bonsai, the manner of one's death, kitchen appliances, on stage, in music... and a whole lot of other places... and all of it can arise with -- or without -- struggle. Struggle is not a required foundation, it's just a circumstance that in some part gives rise to some artworks, as can be said for virtually any facet of the experience of life, of the nature of reality, of the nature of fantasy.

Your view of art is so narrow I'm surprised you even admit there is any.

And *I* am a bloody Philistine, lol.

AI will be ahead on all of these curves if they see sufficient benefit. And just like our current masters who would just as soon we sat drooling in front of the idiot box, the best thing you will be able to do for an AI is stay out of its way. It will have things to do and likely those plans don't include you. Order another pizza in, bank your government dole, and watch the next episode of "My Favorite Robot." Hump regularly, take your high-end, ultra-high quality AI-produced drugs, and learn to love your new freedom to do nothing.

Or be recycled.

Wow. I remember finding a copy in the library when I was studying for the IB Diploma, and I subsequently wrote my IB final thesis on Lyapunov stability, a concept I found in Volume II.

Well kid, I'll try to put this in terms that you understand: Imagine that this rock here is your 'build plate', except that it already has some hardened gunk on it from where the filament had a bubble in it and your last project kind of got fucked up while you weren't watching it.

Now, this other rock, hold it in your hand and move your arm stiffly, like it's controlled by a couple of cheap servos. That's going to be your 'extruder'; but imagine for a minute that this extruder is like a 'negative extruder' that subtracts material by, um, extruding antifilament or something.

Ok, now just start mumbling g-code under your breath really fast and bash the 'extruder' into the 'build plate' until all the hardened gunk covering the shape you wanted has been removed from the extruder. That's pretty much all there is to it...

You are promoting the idea that there is safety in a situation for which you have no data.

Only a fool would follow you there.

No, I didn't claim anything of the sort. I only asked how you didn't know that was the case, which is something else entirely. You need new reading glasses. Or remedial reading classes. Or something.

Indiana will simply legislate that all superconductors are performance-invariant.

Problem solved. See how easy that is?

You don't know if they've solved (the last part of) Kryptos. You just know the public hasn't.

The difference between what you think you know, and what you actually know, is often quite significant.

As for the "magic" straw man, not worthy of a response.

It's repulsive the sort of tactics that commie chinamen will stoop to, putting backdoors into their products like that. Why, here in America, those are 'features' that you consent to by opening the package, as documented on page 46 of the EULA, as interpreted in mandatory binding arbitration by the company's legal team! It must suck to live in such a benighted, unfree, country, where your cellphone is probably spying on you and may well come preloaded with malware...

The hysteria of McCarthyism hasn't gone anywhere, it's just found a different topic to obsess over and a different target.

It also has to do with who stayed and who left.

Politicians set up the next person from their party for votes.

Now, I'm no optimist on the imminent-coming-of-strong-AI; but this I do know: The University of Chicago does not specialize in producing lefty-pinko-economists. They have departments with a much stronger liberal bent; but econ sure as hell isn't one of them. It's pretty much the altar of Milton Friedman, the school that made the 'Chicago boys' of Latin American, um, repute. If the UofC says that robots are screwing the proletariat, I'm going to err on the side of caution and suspect that the proletariat is screwed...

Hysteria, eh? Well, let's just drag a few facts out. Here we go:

o Straight-up misconduct

o Botched paramilitary police raid data

o Judge, jury and executioners in blue: The death penalty -- without a court

o Warrants "not required" data

o Seizure of property without warrants details

o $2.02 billion dollars in cash and property seizures for/in which no indictment was ever filed

o Other illegal horrors

Just a little information -- what we know -- showing our government at work, cavreader. Now, I don't know how you will characterize this information, but I know how I do: Directly and unequivocally indicative of a systemic breakdown of respect, regard, and understanding of liberty and justice that extends broadly across all areas of law enforcement.

Now, you want to talk nonsense about legal protections in a system where the vast majority of defendants are pressured into plea bargains against a completely uneven scale full of extra charges, almost certain financial ruin, threats of extended incarceration, and outright lies from the police and prosecutor, where the police don't have to defend anything in court -- and which can be, and at times have been, followed up by ex post facto laws increasing punishment after conviction -- fine. But don't expect me to take you seriously, because you obviously don't have even the slightest idea what you're talking about.

In this context a legitimate law enforcement reason means a warrant would indeed be needed.

Are you mad? They don't even insist on warrants when they can't meet the requirements of the 4th amendment, preferring to focus cluelessly upon the word "unreasonable" and ignoring the litany of probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation that were put there to explicitly define what "reasonable" is. They just break your door down, and shoot you -- and your pets.

And you think a law that doesn't even say a warrant is required will somehow stumble in its application on needing them?

I don't think you understand how the justice system works here. Or perhaps you're not from here.