...And finally, don't these autonomous cars already have robust detection of humans? Detecting humans then refraining from mowing them down near a charging station seems no different to detecting humans on sidewalks or crosswalks. Easier perhaps, because the vehicles should only be moving very slowly....
So... what is the purpose of the beeping alerts, then, if there is no danger to which you need to alert humans?
Just remove the beepers entirely.
Seems like, with all that technology, they could turn off all that beeping and flashing while they're in the charging station area.
Good idea, but you'd also need a pretty robust safety verification mechanism, showing that the vehicles are indeed in an area where they can turn safety features off, with no humans accidentally in the area.
A remarkable lack of details.
Exactly what is this proposing to do? Shoot down missiles with a quadcopter?
Nah. The Program Committee members are the ones who pick the peer reviewers.
To be fair, though, usually reviewers are hard to motivate, and some are late or just drup out of sight, so as the program-committee area head you probably end up having to review the papers you can't find reviewers for.
But they are related.
Economic dominance allows you to fund the research that gives you technological dominance. Technological dominance allows you to produce next-generation munitions that give you military dominance. Military dominance means you can't be easily bullied to take away your economic dominance.
At one point last week I pasted the first ~300 words or so of the King James Bible into an AI detector. It told me that over half of it was AI generated.
Sure. It reads very stilted; no actual human would write text like that these days.
I am not at all surprised about AI peer review.
Peer review is part of the fundamental basis verifying the integrity of the scientific enterprise, but it is done anonymously, gets you no credit, nobody knows whether you do a good job or a bad one, and is basically a time sink with little reward except a vague feeling that you did something useful. I personally do NOT use LLM models (for peer review or anything else), but I absolutely can see how it would be very tempting to do so, a tremendous time saver with no down side.
The entirety of the industrial revolution has been finding ways to use automation to decrease the amount of human labor used to make things (i.e., increase "productivity".) The problem is that we do not have an economic system in which a society works when there is no need for human labor, and a small but rich fraction of the population owns the machinery that produces everything.
You can choose to reject much of the industrial revolution. Most Westerners are able to purchase human-crafted personal goods. From 100% re-built autos to hand-woven suits and dresses, the items are available. The price? Consumption of a fewer number of "long term" purchases, and great self-satisfaction in identifying master-craft products.
You can choose a lot of different things. The question remains, is this a viable way to structure an economic system in a world in which all of the necessities of life are produced with no (or almost no) labor?
Are you seriously proposing a world in which eight billion people are employed in producing master-crafted articles (and these master-crafted articles are "long term" purchases, hence with a small output needed.)?
As a rule, let peons and sociopaths buy mass-produced items.
Where do the peons get the money to buy mass-produced items?
A handful are master craftsmen. What about the other seven billion?
the hunger by the 1% to remove as much humanity from the workplace is sickening.
To be fair, this is nothing new. The entirety of the industrial revolution has been finding ways to use automation to decrease the amount of human labor used to make things (i.e., increase "productivity".)
The problem is that we do not have an economic system in which a society works when there is no need for human labor, and a small but rich fraction of the population owns the machinery that produces everything.
There's really not much worth reading "on the internet" anymore.
It's meaning inflation. The more words published, the less value per word.
Or, there's the same amount of stuff worth reading, but it is being diluted by a much larger flow of sewage that isn't worth reading.
The idea of people bathing in the effluent of a datacenter is peak dystopian. I love it.
What in the world do you think happens to the output of sewage treatment plants? Do you think it's teleported to Pluto?
All the water you ever bathed in has effluents that have gone through the kidneys of scores of animals. Merely warming water by a few degrees is trivial.
They never heard of direct to air cooling? There is no need to evaporate clean water.
Air cooling is quite inefficient compared to water cooling. The heat of vaporization of water, 2260 kJ/kg, is remarkable. It will remove a lot of heat. Even the thermal mass of water, with a specific heat of about 4.2 kJ K/kg, is pretty impressive.
AI Slop, all of it. "A theocratic sunk cost trap"?
Not sure why you think this is AI slop. It's an interesting argument. Not sure I agree, but it's a different take.
I admit religions are a cost trap, but they are not connected to data centers
The connection is right in the subject line: it is comparing AI to a "sacred prestige competition." The central idea is that AI is like religion in that it promises great and wonderful rewards in the future if we make sacrifices in the present, and if we don't see any of these great and wonderful rewards: that's because we're not sacrificing enough. It becomes a death spiral: the worse things get, the more effort goes into propitiating the gods (rather than growing food).
The idea that some past societies have collapsedbecause when times were bad the theocracy responded by building more temples and making more and larger sacrifices instead of putting resources into solving their problems) is not new. I don't know if any actual historians credit this theory, but it's been proposed.
Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.
