Well, I *do* want an "AI PC", but not anything currently on the market. I want one that will understand books in HTML format and read them to me in a reasonably expressive tone. I'd also like it to be able to pause and then answer questions about what was going on earlier if I missed a point.
OTOH, I'd also want it to be strictly segregated from most of what I do.

That's the way the internet works on land these days, over any distance. Your multiple carriers all turn out to depend on the same infrastructure.

I don't think you understand the process of science. That is the appropriate reaction to any initial claim. An initial observation needs to be repeated by others, and the data that justified the initial claim should be reanalyzed by others to see if they agree with the interpretation. Then arguments ensue. Eventually people "pretty much" come to an agreement.

Sometimes the arguments last for decades.

It also suggests that as time goes by, dark matter will decay into normal matter (photons). Rather slowly, however.

Apparently you'll need to be able to see gamma rays to be able to see it.

We know it weakly interacts electromagnetically, which means one of the ways in which it is posited planets form, initially via electrostatic attraction of dust particles, isn't likely to work. This means dark matter will be less "clumpy" and more diffuse, and less likely to create denser conglomerations that could lead to stellar and planetary formation.

What this finding does suggest, if it holds true, is that some form of supersymmetry, as an extension fo the Standard Model is true. Experiments over the last 10-15 years have heavily constrained the masses and energy levels of any supersymmetry model, so it would appear that if this is the case, it's going to require returning to a model that some physicists had started to abandon.

Yes - exactly this. Stop subsidising gas, but to do this they'll need a transition to move all the gas central heating in the UK over to heat pumps instead. Grants for doing so exist, but also increasing pressure on the gas price side would push people in the right direction as well.

You're thinking DRAX which yes, as it stands is definitely not a net-positive. But DRAX is normally excluded as they usually report on 'wind and solar'. If someone in government wants to look good with a pie chart with bigger numbers then yes - DRAX gets put in. But for the energy industry itself, it's reported differently.

It's the reverse. Green electricity is held back from adoption because the price is linked to the price of gas. While ever that link exists, electricity will be unnaturally expensive in comparison to its raw market price.

It's not completely irrational, although arguable (I would be on this point of view for instance) it's now out of date. The idea is to pick the most expensive bid price for the spot market price, not the cheapest, in order to incentivise continued operation of difficult energy sources. Why would you want to? Because in ye olden days 'difficult' were things like the hydro power or nuclear which were great for maintaining base line load and which you wanted to subsidise to keep going.

In today's market, that's completely on its head and renewables are the cheapest. Established nuclear second, granted construction costs of new nuclear make that overall cost higher of course. This is why the government is incentivising pushes towards heat pumps etc. - the more we get off gas, the less reason to maintain this market oddity exists and it can be removed making electricity cheaper again.

This is easier said than done. Much of the UK's housing stock would need improvement before heat pumps are viable. I recently had a survey on my own house for instance, and it came back as non-viable without a lot of improvements around heat loss first. These improvements would be a good thing and are semi-subsidised, but it's still effort. I believe the new build rules have finally, years late but finally, been changed to require standards around heat pumps and solar.

So yep - electricity being expensive in the UK is not due to the renewables or nuclear, it's due to gas. And the reason we still rely on gas so much is inertia plus building standards and upgrades. Hard one to unpick, but got to start somewhere.

For people, the internet is one source of information. For AI training, it is the only source.

If you don't get why that difference matters, go ask Mummy for cookie and some milk, it's past your bedtime and you have school tomorrow.

Yes. In a society with a rule of law, it cannot be any other way. The only alternative is to people can tell whatever lies they want without fear of consequences, even if it literally gets people killed. We see too much of that already.

When you're a narcissist, and stupid, it's pretty obvious, to you, that you're inherently superior to all other human beings, therefore, it is literally impossible for anyone to honestly give you less than the best possible rating.

Yes, these "people" really do believe that.

In many other countries, as well, but don't let that stop you from masturbating furiously over how much you hate the US.

I'm not saying any particular person said that, and the question to Slashdot was asked over 2 decades ago. But I was assured that SSDs were "now reliable as an archival store", despite my informal test failure. (I had backed up something to them, and stuck them in a drawer for perhaps a year. They became unreadable.)

Show me how your insights have enabled you to create more advanced functionality, and then I'll be interested.

Much of the critique seems irrelevant to AI other than LLMs, such as self-driving cars which map visual input to actions.