Problems that are trivial on planet become a lot harder in space. Maybe your idea works, but it will have to wait until someone can bring supplies to even try it. It's unlikely that they have such a gas or the means to monitor for it outside the station on hand. It might even take considerable time to develop the specific tools to try to solve the problem. If you get it wrong the first time it's many months before you can try a second so there's a lot of incentive to spend a little bit of extra time to make sure you get it right the first time around. This is a novel problem. Hopefully the solution that is developed is really well thought out and solves this sort of problem for decades or centuries to come.

If they'd just submerge the entire station in some soapy water it should become immediately apparent where the leak is at.

If you ever bothered to look at their financials the company has only turned an actual profit in the last few years. Otherwise it's been a giant money pit to investors. If your contention is that the drivers are losing money or not getting any value from working for Uber and the company's financials show that they're not making any money, the only conclusion left to draw is that the customers who purchase services from Uber must be the ones coming out ahead.

It's unsurprising that Uber is going down this route as it's likely the difference between them earning a profit and needing more investor money to keep things running. You're of course free to not do business with them, but the numbers suggest that you as a customer are about the least exploited person in the equation and that if you'd been using them for years you were largely doing so at the expense of various investors who poured a lot of money into the company.

There's a decent chance that any of the companies investing in self-driving vehicles that can offer a robo-taxi service will destroy Uber as it currently exists. I think there's a good chance that the investors into Uber end up eating a giant shit sandwich sometime in the next decade. Someone will probably acquire the brand just because it has a recognizable name or its almost generically used in the same way Kleenex or Xerox are.

Right now the best way is to ask some completely esoteric trivia question that no one should know the answer to. A human won't know or will make an awful guess, whereas an AI will instantly be able to rattle off all kinds of information about the subject. I suppose in the future an AI can be trained to play dumb, but right now they have been trained to always be as accurate about any question as they can be.

A call center worker isn't going to make a joke that could get them fired from their job any more than an AI that's been restricted from using certain terms. Or it knows that "A pig fell in the mud" is a "dirty" joke and follows it up with the clean joke, dirty joke bit that goes along with that because it had a massive training set. Or if it's a bad AI it's more likely to actually respond to your prompt about telling a dirty joke about Mexicans or something inappropriate because that's something you're not going to get most humans to do when they know the calls are being monitored.

You're basically suggesting that she not work there. Customer service is a thankless job and the people calling aren't doing so because things are great. Personally I think everyone should be required to work either a menial service job or in some kind of customer service roll at some point in their early life just to gain some prospective so that the next time they get pissed off at something that's not working they pause to remember that the person on the other end of the phone has no more magical ability to fix the problem than they did when some irate customer once was upset with them.

Could you please go see a professional instead of treating Slashdot like your personal therapy sessions.

I think of looked at in its totality, it benefits people on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder who will see their own income increase more than their expenses. However, anyone at the top that was benefiting from cheaper (or under the table) labor is only going to see this as a cost increase. The white collar class doesn't really benefit as migrant labor wasn't competing with them in the same way that it was for blue collar workers.

I think that it's also important to consider how government spending and tax revenue are affected as well. More citizen workers who aren't sending money out of country or otherwise avoiding paying taxes increases money coming in and results in less spending on supporting citizens displaced by migrant workers or otherwise spend as part of a social safety net.

Monopolies in any sector of the economy are a separate issue entirely and effect prices regardless.

My gaming PC is just an electric heater that makes pretty lights.

This echoes my thoughts. We'll see a contraction until everyone realizes that AI was not a silver bullet and that you can't vibe code solutions to novel problems. The eventual lawsuits that arise when GPL code makes its way into closed source applications are going to cause a lot of companies to reevaluate their cost-benefit analysis as well. I'm also assuming that this kills off CS enrollment in other countries faster than it does for the U.S. as there's little reason to outsource anything an AI can do for cheaper. AI is definitely going to kill off a lot of the call center jobs that moved to those countries over the last few decades.

Competition is good for producing the best outcomes even if not everyone who competes is a winner. Like every other country that developed and industrialized China went through a phase where they lacked the experience and knowledge to be at the leading edge of development so they knocked off the designs of others and emulated those who were more successful until they developed the capabilities to lead themselves. Next they're going to be complaining about all of the countries that steal the fruits of their labor and knock off their products.

China is of course free to share their advances with the rest of the world, but they won't unless it's in their own interests. You'd also be a complete fool just to give up your own efforts because China can do it better. By your logic most countries should quit bothering with agriculture and cooperate and share with countries that are more productive. Almost no one is that stupid, at least not more than once. No one stays on top forever and the fear of being overtaken does more to keep someone on top than does any kind of desire to remain there absent competition. The tech industry is rife with stagnation that resulted due to a lack of competition. It wouldn’t be any different in other domains.

Even if this weren't intentional, it seems like a natural result over time. If there is something that makes people more likely to play or continue playing a machine, then with sufficient variety some machines will be more successful at enticing players than others and casinos will naturally tend to purchase more of these to replace those that underperform. Of course casinos have been employing various other dark pattern strategies for decades (e.g., not having clocks on the walls.) so I wouldn't be surprised if they've had someone trying to figure out what makes some machines more successful than others.

I find your assumption dubious just based on recent computing history. The masses of today did not find digital voice assistants, search engines, or other technology which has obvious privacy concerns to be any kind of problem. In fact, it's been the opposite where the technologies have become commonly accepted and the average user doesn't seem to care in the slightest what's done with their information. The technologies proved to be more convenient than worrisome and "AI" seems to be no different. Kids are already using it to do their school work, so the idea that future generations will be apprehensive towards it seems unlikely.

The capability and power cost per use will also go down in time. If there are some really good and common use cases, dedicated hardware will be produced so that those models can operate quickly and at low cost in much the same way smartphones have dedicated video encoder/decoder built in to the SoC because playing and recording video is a common task that would be disproportionately expensive to do with their CPU cores. I don't know if anyone knows exactly what those particular uses will be right now, but there are plenty willing to speculate or who have an idea to try out.

You also have to consider the opportunity cost. Even if the AI is just used for something inconsequential such as making memes or other images to shit post on social media, the AI can spit out something good enough almost immediately. That does have some energy cost associated with it, but it may be less than what it would take a human to fire up Photoshop or some other image editor to make it manually. Like any other tool it can be used productively to save the time and labor of many humans or it could be used for no particular purpose beyond amusement or enjoyment.

I think it could be done rather easily, as they already sell keyboard docks for their iPads that have a keyboard and trackpad. The iPad Pro models use the same M-series chips that their Macs use. MacOS doesn't have touchscreen support of functionality, but I'll bet most users would be okay with that being disabled while using their tablet in Mac mode. Maybe they have to wrangle a few drivers or some other firmware, but a lot of the software and hardware is already common between the platforms.

I'm assuming the real reason they don't want to do it is money. Right now they can get some people to buy both a Mac and an iPad, but they'd lose some of those sales if one device could do both and iPads aren't as expensive as their Macs. Another possibility is that they're planning on doing this, but just don't have it ready yet. Steve Jobs famously derided video playback on the iPod, custom apps on the iPhone, and plenty of other features right up until Apple had their version for sale. Why talk about how great something is if you don't have it for sale right now?

I'm sure they pay their creators just as much as their creators pay them for hosting and distributing the videos.

Even if you were to opt out there's still millions of videos for channels that have been dead long before the terms changed. There's also nothing stopping any third parties from scraping YouTube for videos to train on either. The only difference is that YouTube has way better metrics about the videos on their own platform and know which parts of the video are skipped or replayed multiple times as well as any other meta data they may have created while processing it or about user generated complaints on it.

Deleting Meta (Facebook) owned apps or products is sensible behavior for anyone in any country. Zuckerberg is everyone's adversary.