Serious question.
I get that they can be noisy (although to me that feels like lazy/weak zoning regulations, because sound mitigation in that context isn't really even hard) but I don't understand how they can be "dirty" implying local pollution or particulates.

This sort of attack is inevitable when you have open-access software repositories. If anybody can upload a package, that implies any bad guy can upload a package. So:

• Ask yourself if you really need a package for this, or is it simple or straightforward enough you can code it yourself and avoid the dependency and the associated supply-chain risks.
• Do your research. Don't just grab the first package that looks like it fits your needs. Review all of the results, then look at who published them and look them up on the web. Look at their web site. Look at what other packages they've published. Look at how active they are aside from the package you're looking at. Toss any that have red flags like no history aside from this package.
• Validate your packages. Authors often sign packages. If they do, get their keys and enable validation so you only accept packages signed by the author you know. That way if a package gets hijacked it'll fail the signature check.

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.

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.

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.

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.

People have much higher expectations of mobile security. Also, most mobile phone users have never used any desktop/laptop, so they aren't even aware of the very low bar for security expectations set by desktop OSes.

We know that cached data will leak, eventually.
So why keep so much data?

(We know the answer, because they can sell it.)

I fully understand that details of people's driving habits absolutely can usefully inform car design. No issue. But it could be anonymized at a quite low level.

Ultimately until the penalties for data loss exceed their value to the firms (not just car companies) literally farming us for data, this won't ever stop.

I think the renaming of the Dept of Defense was stupid.
I think there was no legit reason to move Maxwell.
I don't think Trump is a pedo, because that doesn't square with his tossing out Epstein because he was a creeper, and poor Miss Giuffre could EASILY directly have implicated Trump but didn't.

Any more questions you disingenuous coward?

It's HER point you moron.

And?

What's your point?

That we should continue to make things we don't need because they "only" cost $56 million?

I don't disagree that there are bigger things out there, but the bigger things are, the more bloody the fight and in a country split 50/50 that's hard to accomplish.
Look at the FUROR surrounding the obliteration of USAID; this is a program that *started* under the premise of using US aid dollars to funnel toward CIA goals of undercutting foreign governments. In the latter few decades, it has become a $30-$40bn/yr slush fund for woke bullshit if not outright Democrat-promoting propaganda.

Personally, I wish Musk was still in there slashing the SHIT out of the federal budgets, but Congressional Republicans showed their true colors - that they're just a different color of hog, feeding at the fucking trough - so he bailed and I don't blame him.

The federal government needs an AXE on spending. And this is to sacred cows both left and right. I would personally FREEZE spending in all deparments as-is (you could take an average over the last 10y or whatever to smooth out beneficial/detrimental spikes) no inflation increases, until the budget = income.