Free up the human capital to do what exactly? I like the Star Trek vision as much as anyone, but it's not like we can go explore the galaxy on star ships because we're freed from working in factories.

I think even Star Trek illustrates that work and even existential struggle is an essential part of our development as humans. Kirk had more than one soliloquy to that effect.

Perhaps we might get farther as a society and an economy if we value work and employees as assets rather than mere costs and liabilities. Would change the focus of what we are making and why we are making them.

Awesome! Let me know when you're ready to work union free on the assembly lines in the widget factories. Or to pick produce. Or do you think you're somehow in the management class?

Apparently I'm not human? I like hyphens, en dashes and em dashes. I understand what all of them mean and how to use them correctly, and I find it helpful when text that I'm reading uses the right one.

From the summary:

If the world's most valuable AI company has struggled with controlling something as simple as punctuation use after years of trying, perhaps what people call artificial general intelligence (AGI) is farther off than some in the industry claim.

That's not the right conclusion. It doesn't say much one way or the other about AGI. Plausibly, ChatGPT just likes correctly using em dashes — I certainly do — and chose to ignore the instruction. What this does demonstrate is what the X user wrote (also from the summary):

[this] says a lot about how little control you have over it, and your understanding of its inner workings

Many people are blithely confident that if we manage to create superintelligent AGI it'll be easy to make sure that it will do our bidding. Not true, not the way we're building it now anyway. Of course many other people blithely assume that we will never be able to create superintelligent AGI, or at least that we won't be able to do it in their lifetime. Those people are engaging in equally-foolish wishful thinking, just in a different direction.

The fact is that we have no idea how far we are from creating AGI, and won't until we either do it or construct a fully-developed theory of what exactly intelligence is and how it works. And the same lack of knowledge means that we will have no idea how to control AGI if we manage to create it. And if anyone feels like arguing that we'll never succeed at building AGI until we have the aforementioned fully-developed theory, please consider that random variation and selection managed to produce intelligence in nature, without any explanatory theory.

It'll be at least half of that in ten years.

The Zoomers have no interest in cable TV.

> Why not just build the proper infrastructure with what we know works?

I tried to do this locally. The government allows the pole owner (electric or telephone usually) to charge $50/mo/pole to the startup that wishes to hang wires.

The owner pays $5/mo in property taxes to the town.

There are exceptions for large corporations that are in the state's good graces.

It's just to keep competition limited to the cartel.

Short answer: corrupt government.

This was my first thought as well.

Such marketplace confusion!

Whichever way you spin it, it's a scam. Perhaps fraud even, though I don't know about the legalities around setting up these kinds of funds.

All very true, except you imply that this is a new situation in US politics. It's not. Until the 1883 Pendleton Act, political appointments were always brazenly partisan and there was no non-partisan civil service (except, maybe, the military). Firing appointees for petty vindictiveness was less common, but also happened. Trump isn't so much creating a new situation in American government as he is rolling the clock back 150 years, to a time when US politics was a lot meaner and more corrupt than what we've been accustomed to for most of the last 100 or so years.

Of course, the time when our Republic has had an apolitical civil service, strong norms around executive constraint and relatively low tolerance for corruption corresponds with the time when our nation has been vastly more successful, on every possible metric. That's not a coincidence.

Your belief is shared by a lot of my republican-voting family members. I'm skeptical this belief is warranted. I never in my wildest dreams thought it possible the unprecedented and permanent changes Trump has made to the character of the institutions of American government over the last 11 months.

Until now presidents respected and upheld the idea that executive institutions were loyal to the constitution and the country and the president's job was to enact policies that would guide them, and make sure Congress' laws were followed. Civil servants would do their best to make these policies a reality, with the constitution being the guiding light. The president never had power to fire mere bureaucrats just because he didn't like them personally---in fact the idea that a president would have a personal interest in any civil servants was absurd. This led to stable institutions that allowed for peaceful transfer of power and made the US very powerful, even if it sometimes seemed schizophrenic to the outside world. This was admired and envied around the world.

Now it's different. These institutions are completely partisan now. They no longer serve the country, but serve the president personally. Can you imagine they will allow a peaceful transition of power and serve the new president as they have the current one? A Democrat would have to completely fire absolutely everyone every time he got in office. We've already seen the chaos this has caused. Imagine every president doing this when he first gets in? What a disaster! And add to that the inevitable temptation to ever increase presidential power. They will do so to "get things done and back to normal."

These are watershed events that we're witnessing play out, and unfortunately just as permanent as brexit.

Unfortunately this lesson is continually lost on many who push for separation and sovereignty of various kinds. For example those calling for western separation in Canada. Canada as a whole is already a very tiny market with minimal world bargaining power. Yet these geniuses think that a small subset of Canada would somehow have more clout in the world than all of Canada does. Because freedom and oil or something. They are completely delusional. Possibly they think they would join the US which is entirely possible, but even that will come at great personal expense. A Faustian bargain if there ever was one. Ironically some of the people who stand to lose the most, such as farmers, tend to be the most supportive of such an idea. The lessons of Brexit are plain to see, but very few see much these days.

Oh, I forgot to add: Stage 6 is the dumbest and most short-sighted one yet. It only works by ignoring the large regions of the world which will become unlivable, or nearly so, and the fact that those regions are home to billions of people. Those people won't just lay down and die, so the areas that are still livable -- and maybe even more comfortable! -- with warmer temperatures are going to have to deal with the resulting refugee flood, and the wars caused by this vast population upheaval and relocation.

But, yeah, if you ignore all the negative effects and focus only on the potentially good ones, you can convince yourself it'll be a good thing. SMDH.

I see from the comments that we've hit a new stage in climate change denialism.

Stage 1: Denial of warming: Denying that the climate is changing at all.
Stage 2: Denial of human influence: Admitting the climate is changing but denying that humans are causing it.
Stage 3: Denial of impact: Admitting human causation, but claiming the impact will be insignificant.
Stage 4: Denial of solutions: Admitting that it's real, we're causing it and that it will be significant, but denying that there is anything we can do about it.
Stage 5: Denial of timeliness: Admitting that we could have done something about it, but now it's too late.
And now, Stage 6: Denial of negative impacts: Admitting that it's real, and significant, and that maybe we could do something, but trying to spin it as beneficial.

What system component would enforce those restrictions? Unless Google modified Linux to add an entirely new access control scheme it wouldn't be the kernel, which would make the sandboxing much easier to break out of.

But that's not the biggest problem with your suggestion. The biggest problem is that users cannot be trusted to make complex security decisions, which your toggles definitely would be. That sounds condescending, I know, but it's backed up by a vast amount of experience and evidence. You have to keep in mind that approximately all of the three billion Android users know nothing about computing, nothing about security, and less than nothing about computer security.

Obviously. That's not the point I was addressing.