It's kind of surprising how little press coverage Artemis has gotten. People flew around the moon.

Seriously? Turn your brain on. You can think better than that.

I can accept art as communication, but how do you consider it dialogue? A dialogue requires the listener to respond in some way, it's a two way communication. How is the listener answering back to the artist?

The people who don't have a problem with it aren't complaining.

It's clearly not real, but cartoons are also clearly not real. And we enjoy cartoons.

Everything you said is right, but it doesn't lead to the conclusion. Yes, actors have lots of skills. But that doesn't answer the question:

If AI can do the job of an actor, why would acting deserve special protection from automation?

WLM = Windows Live Mail

A good idea would be to create a "peace department" to balance the war department, one that puts serious resources into studying peace and how to make it a reality.

Currently Trump is enacting a non-violent approach (blockading Iranian shipping) so I don't know why you are confused by this.

You can just leave it there, because compared to you, the BBC is a beacon of objectivity. You are biased.

With the ESA supplying the spacecraft, most of the software is likely to be competently written and/or open-source. This will prove to the Martians that there is indeed intelligent life on Earth.

It's a good question and one I'm working on trying to get an answer to. By giving AI hard, complex engineering problems, and then getting engineers to look at the output to determine if that output is meaningful or just expensive gibberish.

By doing this, I'm trying to feel around the edges of what AI could reasonably be used for. The trivial engineering problems usually given to it are problems that can usually be solved by people in a similar length of time. I believe the typical savings from AI use are in the order of 15% or less, which is great if you're a gecko involved in car insurance, but not so good if you're a business.

If the really hard problems aren't solvable by AI at all (it's all just gibberish) then you can never improve on that figure. It's as good as it is going to get.

I've open sourced what AIs have come up with so far, if you want to take a look. Because that is what is going to tell you if good can come out of AI or not.

I would think it goes further. If the company has already failed (ie: no longer exists) then the action is not taken by the company but a former employee of that company (even if said former employee was the CEO). Former employees are not granted special authority over PII or over company-owned information.

Irrelevant. PII protections are not subject to company discresion.

The conversations are not private, but PII laws nonetheless still apply. Anything in the messages that violates PII privacy laws is forbidden regardless of company policy. Policy cannot overrule the law.

Now, in the US, where privacy is a fiction and where double-dealing is not only perfectly acceptable but a part of workplace culture, that isn't too much of an issue. The laws exist on paper but have no real existence in practice.

However, business these days is international and American corps tend to forget that. Any conversation involving European computers (even if all employers and employees are in the US) falls under the GDPR and is under the aspices of the European courts and the ECHR, not the US legal system. And cloud servers are often in Ireland. Guess what. That means any conversation that takes place physically on those computers in Ireland plays by European rules, even if the virtual conversation was in the US.

This was settled by the courts a LONG time ago. If you carry out unlawful activities on a computer in a foreign country, you are subject to the laws of that country.

You're supposed to say, "If you gaze into Sam Altman's orb, it will save the children!" No one cares about scalpers, think of the children.