Most consumers today aren't using IPv4 by choice, but by necessity. Every OS out there supports IPv6, as does every router made in the last 10 years, and supports it pretty much automatically if it's available. The main reason they still use IPv4 is that their ISP hasn't deployed IPv6 support on their residential network, so IPv6 isn't available unless you're a techie and recognize the name Hurricane Electric. The next most common reason is that the site they're accessing only has IPv4 addresses assigned so connections are automatically done via IPv4. Consumers have control over neither of those reasons.

Here's one reference, though not the orginal one I read.
https://academic.oup.com/ismej...

Note that this is not DIRECTLY eating radiation, but that's still its energy source, as that's where the H molecule comes from. So to simplify, saying it eats radiation is not wrong.

You don't go far enough. Fighting and control to what end? Much of the fighting is sheer competition to grab more. More land and resources, to support more children. As for fighting, no, most people have the sense not to willingly risk their lives in deadly combat. Most would rather move into empty lands, or failing that, clear out the current occupants through genocide. If easy genocide is not possible either because the occupants can and will fight back, some will choose war, but only if it looks easy.

Religion is rather orthogonal to this. Been used as much or more to justify fighting as to discourage fighting.

Just tell me if you're seriously worried that using AI constitutes enslavement.

Oh wow, sign me up for your newsletter on the emancipation of washing machines.

It's quite plausible that it eats radiation. There are bacteria that live inside rocks and eat radiation. That it would be a shield is, however, very implausible.

The opposing force is they are looking down the barrel of a demographic implosion that has already begun. Their labor force started shrinking in 2015.

Not really. If you ask it what's going on in the news then you'll get an up-to-date response, because it knows in that instance to check and summarize the news rather than just generating something from its LLM.

And if you ask Gemini what time it is you'll get the right answer, for the same reason.

The fact that ChatGPT fails to do this is a problem with ChatGPT, not any inherent problem for AI. Probably in response to this embarrassing article it will be fixed within a couple weeks.

But if they talk, should you believe them. People say all sorts of things. You can't really trust strangers whose motives you can only guess at. Perhaps they're about to be fired, so they want to damage the company.

For that matter, if someone said a game was NOT made with AI, I wouldn't believe them. They only know part of what was being done, so even if they're intending to be honest they can't be believed.

I think he was probably correct when he asserted "AI will be a part of the way all games are made".

It's not slop everywhere else, just in many places. AIs that have been custom trained for a particular situation can often do quite well. This work particularly well in classification, but also works in several other areas.

The main criteria at the moment is "so you have an easy way to check correctness?". If you do, then AI can, when properly trained and configured, do a good job.

Reselling is definitely shady. But there would be no scope for such schemes if the price was fair. It's not.

The legendary Robin Hood robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. Was he wrong? Was his cause not worthy? He was fighting greed-- excessive, damaging taxation and hoarding of wealth. Today, greed has again arisen to become one of our biggest problems, with these super rich using their immense wealth to corrupt our systems to unfairly direct even more wealth to them.

Your use of the term "thief" prejudices your argument. Copying is not theft. Copying is copying. Pirating a TV signal, maybe that should be a crime, but it shouldn't be lumped in with theft. For years, the entertainment industry has been trying to convince the world that sharing is theft. Don't do their dirty work for them.

Yes, I am aware TorrentFreak ran the story. They are one of the few exceptions to the near universal censoring and propagandizing the media does on this issue.

No doubt, but the grownups aren't talking about replacing the fuel bill with a per mil charge, we're talking about replacing the fuel tax>/em>. California has the highest gas tax in the US, at 61.2 cents per gallon. I drive about 10,000 miles a year. The gas tax comes out to a bit less than $250/year at 25 mpg. 3 cents per mile would be $300/year, or higher (though not a lot higher).

In the rest of the country - by definition, our gas tax being the highest - the difference will be more.

Note that the gas tax in California (like most states) does not go to CalTrans, responsible for maintaining highways, it goes into the general fund, for whatever graft and corruption on the the menu this week. The same would be true of any per mile tax on EVs.

As for replacing the fuel bill, last time I calculated it, the cost of electricity here to charge a typical EV would also cost more than the gasoline, and electricity has gone up since then (quite a bit this year), where gas goes up and down, but has hovered between $4-5/gallon for years.

Society must acknowledge that sharing of info should be encouraged, and be thankful that technology has made sharing incredibly easy. Need to work harder on systems that can fairly compensate producers while encouraging sharing, not continue to base compensation on the restriction of sharing. Especially not to the point of outlawing sharing and wasting resources enforcing that and causing still more waste of lives that have to spend ruinously to fight to defend themselves from the legal mess.

One thing that makes this issue most intractable is that the organs who report on it are thoroughly convinced that sharing is contrary to their own interests. How is the public to hear unbiased reporting on this matter when no one with a metaphorical megaphone will give one?

This is supposed to be for NON-emergency calls. Not comparable to 911.

And you've just accused me.