Maybe the AI powered think tanks can come up with something more original the yet another freaking cold war.

Can't you figure out how to cooperate? Too challenging?

It's certainly possible that some people do, sincerely, 'fear' that the onrushing machine god will speak chinese and that it would be just the worst if all humans were rendered obsolete by the wrong side's robot when that's supposed to be our job; but, especially with how tepid the results are for the money poured in, it seems much more the case that we are seeing a lot of nakedly cynical playing of the 'give us what we want, lest the chinese win' by people who are otherwise on deeply shaky ground in terms of things like massive copyright infringement, voracious data mining, and an endless hunger for capital without any signs of returns.

It's like a vastly hypertrophied case of the 'race to 5G' stuff; where, if we didn't give Verizon whatever they asked for, China would have a faster rollout of 5G and we would lose the 4th industrial revolution or something? It was never entirely clearly what losing the race was going to involve.

The existential tone of the claims seem especially curious given how meagre the leads people are pouring billions into seem to be; and how readily 'AI' models can be poked at via distillation attacks or good, old-fashioned, electronic intrusion. If The Singularity kicks off that presumably changes everything beyond the powers of meaningful prediction(though that holds for whoever develops it as well as everyone else; given the odds that it will slip the leash); but as long as you are in the realm of incrementally more or less flakey chatbots it seems a bit weird to even talk like there is some sort of victory condition that will trigger and cause one side to lose.

I would say under-regulation, or more to the point, mal-regulation. Unregulated markets inevitably settle into a worst case scenario given time.

In the case of residential property (which is what your link refers to), I agree that some of the regulations there are bad and need to be revised or eliminated. But they have nothing to do with the commercial space falling into squalor.

My observation has been that any streaming package that includes ESPN is automatically well more than 4 times as expensive as any package without it. Perhaps the cable companies should find a way to dump ESPN and pass along the savings to remain viable.

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!

Pursuit of truth for truth's sake !== The appearance of the pursuit of truth to boost reputation

Thing is, coal is expensive. Solar is cheap. If the US goes all in on coal, oil, gas, etc. - she'll lose.

China has built out massive amount of solar and wind, and hunkering down on batteries. That means they get massive amounts of essentially free electricity.

If the US hunkers down on labour intensive, expensive, polluting stuff - then all the worse for her.

Perhaps there's an incentive for manufacturers to detail how they're exploiting customers but I'm not aware of it - perhaps one day when openness is valued above profit-resulting-from-obscurity?

I suppose if, instead of issuing free-floating (essentially-)PDF contracts, manufacturers registered their contract terms with a system of some sort (trying to avoid the old-think 'centralised' but some system which is universally reachable) in a common language, it could be data-mined by anyone to extract new insights.

Stack ranking that you are suggesting is just as stupid.

Until this connection is broken, science will be flawed and untrustworthy and sadly deliver on its potential.

People's reputation dot dot dot the survivability of their genes depends on their body of work yes?

Its not clear that everyone playing the game of science can overpower their instinct to win by any means necessary, in service of the purity of the scientific method.

Just look at certain people who've thrust themselves into power by corrupt means to see what I mean.

I'd go further, and add that the better the scientist's contradicting evidence the more academia would be happy to have him (*).

In principle.

(*) or her

So you're agreeing with this:

A study that suggests its not going to be that bad will be immediately questioned along with the credentials and bias of the researcher.

ProTip: you are, as you said the same thing in a different way.