If I were, perhaps it's because I'm not seeing any of the real stuff here.

See, that's the thing - you think "honky" is an awful insult, when I grew up it was a punchline on national TV.

As Eric Raymond (ESR) says, AI is a force multiplier. My elaboration: If you are good at what you do, it will let you do accomplish more good stuff faster. If you are not very bright, AI will let you be not bright more efficiently, but it won't make you bright. It's just a tool. It needs to be utilized correctly. There is no shortage of things in this world that can do tremendous damage if not used properly. AI is nothing new in that regard.

"AI slop" is so 2024. That argument isn't valid any more.

I'm surprised you didn't use the word "slop". Spewing a bunch of slogans that would have to be more clever to make it on to bumper stickers makes you look like the people you are complaining about. There are legitimate criticisms to make about AI, and ways to support and defend those arguments. You are not doing that.

So why isnt it mandated for homes and all devices that receive radio currently?

Why is my car the only thing that *has* to receive AM?

This is another bullshit “I have a hobby horse and Im going to fucking ride it at everyone elses expense” political move.

That's not the issue - insurance companies have no problem giving insurance to humans which have "individual learning capabilities."

The problem is that while insurance companies can extract compensation from humans - essentially they can coerce the humans to work "for them" to pay them back - they can't get compensation from the AI, and there isn't a good framework to get compensation from the AI developers.

The issue isn't that the AI learns - the issue is that our legal framework doesn't have a good way to get "compensation" from errant AI - because the AI itself doesn't care if it gets shut off. You can't hold the AI itself "liable" like you can a person. So until we change the liability framework, we'll be stuck. This isn't a technical problem, so much as a social one.

Sounds like you're not defending Access so much as ODBC.

It's mighty convenient for you that your claim makes it impossible for you to provide evidence of this outrageous claim.

... is not let AI get into the hands of people like Bill Gates. That, however, is impossible.

Part of self-driving cars being safer than people is that they don't drive "very close together" - they follow at the appropriate following distance and speed for the lines of sight. This alone accounts for a large portion of the improved safety performance of these systems.

Autonomous cars are actually very good at the driving task. Where they fail is when they encounter situations that are "abnormal" and I think the industry has a problem here; state of the art is either to train specifically for every situation (impossible in the limit) or to kick the decision to a human in a support center somewhere. Things like emergency vehicles, school buses, farmer markets, construction zones, etc.

The industry needs to figure out how to get their systems to "get confused, then reason their way out of a situation."

This long tail is where humans still do better - when there is some "new" scenario, like a particular combination of debris in the roadway, on a Tuesday, with gawkers, during a fireworks display. You will never be able to "train" your way out of that - you need the correct structural formulation for the problem space.

The big takeaway I have from their study is that their study areas - major metropolitan centers - is that cities have way, way worse than average incidents per vehicle mile travelled.

I mean the national average is only something like 1.25 fatalities per 100M miles, injuries only 75 per 100M miles, and "all" incidents like 140 per 100M miles. But the benchmark numbers on the linked websites range from 200 to almost 700 injury incidents per 100M miles in those cities.

Like, if you are using the average number, you can't even reduce the number of incidents by 841 over 271 million miles, because the expected value is only 203. You have to have a rate of at least 300 injury-incidents per 100 million miles to reduce by 841 at over 271 million miles. So really, their results are driven by San Francisco, Austin, and Atlanta.

Their confidence bands are also pretty low; for example they quote 2 serious or greater injuries in San Fran, which on 82 million miles there is a rate of "0.02 per million miles". But 2 injuries is not really enough to make a statistical inference.

Least of all because all the miles are with different versions of their software - you can't make any predictive claim.

Statistics never lie, but you can make them say whatever you want...

The question with these kinds of tech articles is always "can this be scaled to mass market levels" and the answer is almost always "No."

Which doesnt “fix” the underlying issue - the browser is leaking data about you against your knowledge and permission.

That sounds like a flaw in the browser. That should probably be fixed.

I would imagine they decay into something else in like 10e-15 seconds.