Yes of course, there will be criminals that take advantage of the vulnerabilities of self-driving vehicles, just as they have taken advantage of the vulnerabilities of all technologies that came before. But the automated vehicles will then be equipped with new safeguards and new countermeasures, and the arms race will go through yet another cycle.

No. Nothing is secure.

Nothing has ever been secure. Before the internet and after the internet, security has been an illusion.

Consider pickpockets. They used to go for your wallet. These days, they go for your phone.
In the past, people tried to steal money by altering checks. Now, they send you fake payment links.

What has changed as a result of new technology, is *how* things are stolen, not *whether* they are stolen.

The answer to your question is...yes.

Setting aside that phones and tablets are not "desktops," the author counts Android and iOS as "Linux on the desktop" and trots out a 72% market share number. But I don't think that those who long for the Year of the Linux Desktop, would find it fulfilling that their long-sought goal was achieved not by a free, open source Linux distro, but rather, by one or more commercial, for-profit distros.

"Current" can easily be read to be six months old. The point is not the precise definition of "current" but a recognition that models do need to be updated as time goes on. A model from a decade ago is probably not so good today.

The point wasn't about the receptionist role specifically, but about the myriad unwritten tasks that people do as part of their jobs, that this analysis didn't consider.

As for "squeezing out everything possible"--yes, there are companies like that, a lot of them. But a desire for more efficiency isn't in itself, evil. It's how aggressively a company pursues that goal, that can make it evil.

The analysis claims to have covered the skills of 150 million workers in 1,000 jobs. I'd be willing to bet that the analysis didn't cover *every* skill required for even *one* of the jobs.

For example, take the job "receptionist." That's typically an entry-level job that requires skills like answering the phone, taking messages, greeting visitors, and so on. But did the analysis also cover the need for a receptionist to sometimes prevent a visitor from just walking into the offices without knowing their purpose? Or the need to know who to call when somebody shoves their way inside anyway? These are things a normal, uneducated human wouldn't have be trained to do, but AI would need to be told explicitly.

The point is, even the simplest, most entry level jobs include all kinds of *implied* skills that the researchers almost certainly did not include in their analysis. AI can do a *part* of many jobs, but that's not the same as saying that it dan *do* the job.

Of course they are, and they were on that trajectory since the very beginning. Did anyone actually believe it was really going to continue to be a nonprofit org?

First, the specialty AI products, like the ones that look for cancer in X-rays, for example, do not provide local models. These specialty products aren't just a function of the model, the model is just one piece of the larger product.

Second, there will always be a need for models that take into account current events, such as the results of an election that just happened.

I completely agree. But...somebody is getting paid. Without royalties, it's the streaming services themselves.

If AI-generated music can't be copyrighted, who gets to collect royalties?

Flat? Have you looked at the topography of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq? These are rugged places, with IEDs to boot.

One thing I've learned about restaurants, is that you always want to pick their signature dishes, the ones they're good at making. If you opt instead for a dish that they "also have" you will be disappointed.

Education is the "main dish" of universities. Even if the process has good side effects, that's not why you go to college.

You can also make friends and meet spouses *at work.* That's where I met my long-term friends and my wife, though I do have a degree.

No, these kids aren't struggling to find jobs. They're just struggling to find six-figure jobs out of the gate. They've been led to believe that getting that degree was a golden ticket. Then they find out that they start at the entry level like everybody else, despite that degree. And as a result, they're struggling to pay off those student loans they thought would magically pay for themselves when they graduated.

It may be true that degrees aren't about getting a job, but that *is* how they've been marketed to Americans, and how crazy-large student loans have been justified.