Dick, and Bush II, hated that damned buffoon Trump. I always thought his daughter was supporting him, not the other way around.

Microsoft purposefully screws up every other Windows release, so that the subsequent release can be hailed as a massive improvement.

We don't have a technical definition of it, so we can't say if an AI is capable of it.

followed by...

It is just hype when AI proponents claims that current AI might be conscious

I'm wondering if you see any contradiction between these two statements.

Against the federal government, where every agent and federal employee has qualified immunity for any actions without extremely, ridiculously specific, established precedent at scotus level? For civil damages only, because there is no right of private prosecution in federal law as ruled by scotus back in the 80s? Damages paid by the federal government which prints the money, years if not decades after the case crawls the appeals all the way to scotus?

Good luck collecting damages against the federal government, but the frontline agent has zero reasons to care - their chain of command has zero reasons to care, they are immune from accountability. Legally literally, career wise practically - they are too insignificant to be worth throwing under the bus even if things go sideways at that level.

The problem is not about legal recourse - the problem is how incentives and deterrents translate to day to day actions on the ground

The escathon of the techbros is slightly less concerning than the escathon of millenialist religious groups actively working to bring closer the End of Times.

You know, the literal source of that expression - not the metaphorical sense its used in politics since Buckley.

I'm not saying this startup is that type of death cult - rather training an AI based on a technology prone to hallucinations on the Book of Revelations... is a remarkably stupid "fit function" unless thats the output you want.

There is a hell of a difference in context - cops are not federal agents. if a citizen brings a civil rights case against a police department they do this in a federal court - the prosecutor does not work for the same people that may be held responsible for the damage. Thats how you get consent decrees, leadership changes, etc.

Those cases can be career ending for police leadership, and career making for the prosecutors - you can figure out the incentives and deterrents that flow down to the chain.

ICE are federal agents - they are not DOJ but work closely enough, and follow the directives of the same executive branch. Unless the agencies have both disparate policies and a lot of independence (not the case today), a zealous prosecution will be damaging and embarrassing for the executive branch in general.

No prosecutor is going to touch that without clear support from the top. Agency leadership is not going to worry about that risk if they're getting the go ahead from the top of the branch. No individual agent will see the risk of "crossing the line" ending his career, or their boss and their bosses' boss.

For a lot of people those deterrents had gone too far, enforcement had their hands tied, etc. so they don't see this as a bad thing. But we have seen what happens in towns and cities when you give local police "bonuses" and incentives for aggressive enforcement without checks.

wait, which restaurants require an ID scan??

I feel you should also list the Apple team that developed this feature... modern families are complex; how the hell could they make the "just one administrator" mistake? Having two (involved) parents is common. Having messy divorces is common. Having court ordered-custody is common. What sort of family were they designing for?

How does the investor find the products that are viable, but not "seen" or getting traction with customers?

The general idea is not new, that's basically "cigar butt" investing strategy. But the point of tech startups is they are high risk / reward enterprises, which have not proven their worth or accumulated hard assets to justify more debt or valuation on liquidation. They don't struggle long waiting for a turnkey investor. Persistence is not seen as innovation and its cheaper to close shop and launch a new venture.

No man is an island. It's basically impossible to do anything that affects nobody else. If you kill yourself, you might have kids than then needed to be provided for by the state. If you harm yourself, even if nobody is obligated to help you, you can do emotional/mental damage to others who observe your suffering. If you decline protection of infectious desiese, you out others at risk. And so on and so on. Libertarians hate this one weird fact ...

Because if you are drinking the AI koolair at alss training Roko's Basilisk on escathological scripture has to be on the top 10 stupid business plans of a very stupid business cyle

"Almost nothing in the real world is a 2-player game"

That's quite untrue if you ignore rounding-error players in a substantial number of markets.

"framing effect"

Gracious of you to make a joke that illustrates that you actually understand how braindead your original analogy was.

It boggles my mind that somebody could write those words while presumably entertaining the thought that they were making a cogent point.