Just put it in context: Today Russia struck the Pechenihy Reservoir dam in Kharkiv.
Russia launched the war because they thought it would be a quick and easy win, a step towards reestablishing a Russian empire and sphere of influence, because Putin thinks in 19th century terms. Russia is continuing the war, not because it's good for Russia. I'd argue that winning and then having to rebuild and pacify Ukraine would be a catastrophe. Russia is continuing the war because *losing* the war would be catastrophic for the *regime*. It's not that they want to win a smoldering ruin, it's that winning a smoldering ruin is more favorable to them and losing an intact country.

If that age had persisted, it would not have remained gold for very long. Monopolies invariably jack up prices for the consumer (since they have no where to turn) and ratchet down payments to their providers (since they have no other platform to use). They burn the candle at both ends, as brightly as they can, for as long as they can, until something collapses. That is exactly the direction Netflix was moving in and exactly what motivated many content holders to go build their own platform.

So that is our terrible choice:
1. the convenience of having one platform that streams all the content we want to see
2. the affordable prices that come only from having multiple separate platforms all competing against each other.

Both options suck for us in one way or another. The magical hybrid option (one platform that streams everything but stays affordable and pays the creators fairly) can't exist so long as humans are its administrators.

I got a bogus red light ticket once, and that was what convinced me to get a dashcam. That judge just took the cops' word for everything, so even a dashcam might not have helped, but it couldn't have hurt.

No, inflation is an expansion of the money supply. When the government prints more money than the population growth requires, banks lend more money at lower rates, people and businesses borrow more, and the surplus money chasing the same goods and services increases the demand and prices rise. That is economic inflation, my term, which is different from what laymen call inflation: some prices going up, as from tariffs or other taxes.

I have read of people given tickets for passing stopped school buses with their red STOP signs swung out, who got the ticket dismissed by pointing out that normal STOP signs mean PAUSE then continue. I have no idea if the original stories were true or if that still works. STOP signs really mean wait until the intersection clears, and arguably the temporary intersection created by the school bus doesn't clear until the kiddies are across the street.

Widespread doom.

The ability to delegate tasks to an AI and relax as it reliably achieves them (or comes back to you for help if it cannot) is something that everyone wants from AI, and that marketing hype keeps suggesting that we have from AI, but that AI is nowhere near capable of. Not even close.

A significant part of the current AI bubble is driven by this extremely optimistic and outright false belief. People get really impressed by what AI can do, and it seems to them that it is equivalent or even harder than what they want it to do, so they convince themselves that it can.

But it can't. AI hallucination completely ruins this. You give it very clear instructions, and it will get 2/3 of it right, and also do something the exact way you told it not to. This gets even worse with implied behaviors like "and don't delete my entire hard drive while doing this."

AI can be helpful, but not in this way. Proper utilization of AI requires that you understand its limits and operate within them. It is outright reckless to give AI the authority to take action on your behalf (at all), and stupidly reckless to skip confirmations. Without you examining each command it generates, there is no force ensuring that it did it right, and it absolutely will do wrong things that should be simple for it to do right.

It's a catch-22, and always has been.

Dictatorships are tyrannical no matter how intelligent the leaders are. And given the power structure they have, there is absolutely no way to ensure that the dictator even cares about the people at all.

On the other hand, most people are idiots. They are extremely vulnerable to fake facts and other forms of manipulation, so their voting power isn't actually a form of political power held by the people so much as held by the people who manipulate the people.

What we actually have in America is an oligarchy that pretends to be a constitutional republic. Yes, we vote, but regardless of how many people participate the small group of rich people get everything they want. This is the inescapable result of the general stupidity of the majority of people (not to mention general laziness, apathy, and the very real and pressing need to spend their time earning a living instead of studying up and staying on top of politics).

So we get ruled by elites no matter what we do. The blow is softened a bit in a democracy due to regular rotation of the publicly-visible power-holders, but even then, most of the power is held by un-elected, un-appointed, rich people who only care about the country inasmuch as they have to in order to protect their own wealth.

It does not need to be intelligent in order to qualify as "artificial intelligence." In this context, the word "artificial" means "fake." Like "artificial leather" which is not actually leather, or "artificial crab meat" which is not actually crab meat.

The phrase has been around a long time in the domain of computer science and has always been used to mean "that which imitates intelligence (without actually being intelligent)."

You are not alone in your distaste for the word use here. But you are also greatly outnumbered. The English language doesn't have a final authority on what words mean beyond popular use. And in popular use, the phrase "artificial intelligence" is a very broad term that refers to a wide variety of ways that computers do things that seem intelligent (even though they actually aren't).

So, your pleas for people to stop using the phrase this way fall on deaf ears. That ship sailed long ago. This is what the phrase means, and will continue to mean, no matter how much you disapprove.

That wasn't *all* I said, but it is apparently as far as you read. But let's stay there for now. You apparently disagree with this, whnich means that you think that LLMs are the only kind of AI that there is, and that language models can be trained to do things like design rocket engines.

That's what I just said.

Yes, it was supposed to be a joke. Meta-humor, specifically. I was denying that the article applied to me while clearly exemplifying exactly what the article was talking about, thematically linked to a common attribute of the Slashdot user base (arrogance about one's own intelligence).

Oh well. There is a reason I don't work as a professional comedian.

I already know for a fact that I am smarter than most of the human population.

It's just nice to have a conversation with someone smart enough to recognize that. Even if it is an AI.

Here's where the summary goes wrong:

Artificial Intelligence is in fact many kinds of technologies. People conflate LLMs with the whole thing because its the first kind of AI that an average person with no technical knowledge could use after a fashion.

But nobody is going to design a new rocket engine in ChatGPT. They're going to use some other kind of AI that work on problems on processes that the average person can't even conceive of -- like design optimization where there are potentially hundreds of parameters to tweak. Some of the underlying technology may have similarities -- like "neural nets" , which are just collections of mathematical matrices that encoded likelihoods underneath, not realistic models of biological neural systems. It shouldn't be surprising that a collection of matrices containing parameters describing weighted relations between features should have a wide variety of applications. That's just math; it's just sexier to call it "AI".

I thought that what Oracle was really good at was trapping customers into oppressive contracts and using legal action to extract money.