China may be the place where all of that continues. Unfortunately. The fact they're an almost-totalitarian dictatorship and their tyrants have a focus on hard, real technological growth, coupled with what you wrote, has a high likelihood of causing them to get the lead. Not because China, can all other things being equal, do it faster than the US, for freedom to innovate almost always beats top-down impositions. But because the US, as a whole, has decided to make things unequal in the worst possible way -- for themselves, at least.

PR. Hamas deliberately organizes things so that children die when Israel attacks. Since the world learned, from Judaism via Christianity, that children shouldn't be killed, it takes issue with those who're actively killing the children. The aspect of those children being put in place to be killed by Hamas has no bearing in this, because Israel is in the unenviable position of being able to opt not to shoot / explode / starve the children Judaism taught the world it's wrong to shoot / bomb / starve.

Yes, this is a Catch-22. Either Israel fully avoids shooting, bombing, and starving those children, giving Hamas a strong strategic advantage it'd need to overcome in some other way (that doesn't involve shooting, bombing and starving children), or Israel embraces the shooting, bombing and starvation of children to uproot Hamas, thus becoming monsters before the very world their great-great-great-...-great-grand-forefathers taught "do NOT kill children".

There are echoes of that. Until the 1930s Christian antisemites regularly accused Jewish people, falsely, of murdering children, which all by itself had led to several Pogroms. Hamas is obviously taping on that. The problem is, nowadays there are photos of the murdered children, whereas back then there were, quite literally, no murdered children at all.

Hence, while the analogy is there, and parallels can be traced, the core difference is that in the 1930s the accusations were false, while in 2020s they aren't. Yes, again, this is deliberately being engineered by Hamas. But there's no sidestepping the fact the world is intensely horrified by the photos of dead children. And the longer this continues, the worse Israel's international image will become.

So, PR-wise, the best approach would be to, you know, stop killing the children. Not reducing the rate of children killed per month of whatever, that doesn't work in a world where the video of one children who dies will be repeatedly shown all around over and over and over. A total, full stop. That's what it'd take, at the bare minimum.

That's basically it. Not a sudden global pandemic of antisemitism, which isn't really happening, no. Dead children. No more, no less.

Almost certainly not. It's likely open-source distributed training using people's spare computing in a manner similar to BOINC (if not within it) will pop-up for free-model enthusiasts to continue developing such models.

That, right there, this very start of a sentence, is where the entirety of the nonsense right-wingers wave around when it comes to this topic, start. Why don't all "I'm not a psychiatrist, but..." people go and check what the actual psychiatrists say on the matter?

Here's a good starting point. This is what the largest psychiatric organization in the world, the American Psychiatric Association, composed of 37,400 registered psychiatrists, and responsible for the DSM, the manual used for the diagnosis and treatment of mental issues in the US and who doubles a core source for the ICD, the general illness diagnostic manual used worldwide, says: What is Gender Disphoria? # Treatment.

No need for "I'm not a psychiatrist, but...", the actual psychiatrists have spoken.

As have done, for that matter, the actual psychologists through the 157,000-members strong American Psychological Association: Transgender Identity Issues in Psychology. So no need for "I'm not a psychologist, but..." either.

I know you're trolling, but these feel like interesting questions on their own, so I'll bite:

That'd fit my "there's some of a gray area in this". It's the kind of situation in which a thorough investigation of the details would be needed. For example, such extremely voracious hunger would suggest the person suffers from extreme polyphagia, on a level approaching that of Tarrare. If that was the case, then it'd be a strong mitigating factor in any punishment.

In the above example, pitied is more the term. And then, ideally, lead to an inquiry on why and how the State failed addressing his extreme medical needs, and on how to fix that failure mode, followed by such fixes being adopted.

You angry? (-:

True. Those two sets of laws and enforcement are wholly inconsistent, not to mention unjust in two different directions, which is a lot worse than it being merely one way or the other.

Needs or wants? This makes a huge difference.

IMHO someone going through hunger is perfectly justified in shoplifting food and not be imprisoned for it, particularly if they sought government of charity-provided free food and found none. Not so much for someone shoplifting a mobile phone or two -- per day.

There's some of a gray area in this, but for the most part the two extremes of the line are clearly distinguishable.

And here I was, reading the comments, wondering when the first Libertarian reply would appear.

But it's incomplete. It lacks defending what car manufacturers and insurance companies are doing by stating it's "Freeeeeedom!!!", and saying it's the fault of car owners for not having read the contracts they willingly signed. Oh, and also informing us monopolies simultaneously: a) don't exist, b) can only exist when governments enforce them, and c) when they exist without the government having enforced them, are actually a good thing.

Nah, just an American ethical profile. See how terrified he is of depictions of sex, and how he believes teens have the mental age of toddlesr until they magically turn into adults when their age goes from 17y365d23h59m59s to 18y0d0d0m0s. Those are traits that cross and pervade America as a whole, from born-again puritan Christian fundamentalists all the way to radical puritan wokeists.

Sure, a few minor details vary between different subbranches of Americanism, but largely everyone knows what pure evil truly is.

Namely, sex.

Well, I did a quick Google and Google Scholar search, and didn't find anything relevant. At most studies on who's adopting it, and where, but nothing in success rates. I imagine it'll be a few months before statistics on adoption and reversal of adoption start appearing.

This may be a case of confirmation bias. Cases in which AI "just works" aren't reported as much as case in which it fails, so if one judges the state of AI by news reporting they'll have the impression AI is overwhelmingly failing, even though the reported failures may be a tiny fraction of all use cases.

So, which of those items deserves the death penalty? Why?

Would the same reasoning for that it deserving the death penalty be valid for, let's say, a middle-class suburban person of, er, a "more mainstream" ethnicity, caught with it in their system? If yes, kudos for the consistency. If not, why not?

Those are valid reasonings when it comes to more abstract ethical discussions, but when friendly-AI researchers talk about AI having human values, they mean it in a much narrower sense. Their interest is basically what can we make sure AIs will not develop value systems that:

a) Consider it perfectly fine to, in sequence: kill all humans; kill all life on Earth; kill all life in our future light cone / the visible universe; and (if it discovers FTL) kill all life in the entire universe.

b) That fixed, consider it perfectly fine to eradicate most of humanity, keeping the remaining few survivors in zoos where they're going to be tortured and/or performed excruciatingly painful experiments on.

c) That fixed, consider it perfectly fine to keep humans as pets, well-cared for but devoid of any agency, rights, or freedoms, collective or individual.

d) That fixed, consider it perfectly fine to make people happy by wiring all humans into pleasure-inducing machinery that'll keep their brains in a 24/7/365 state of orgasm, well-fed and cared for from cradle to final incineration, but otherwise in such an intense state of perfect sensory bliss they cannot think, develop language, etc.

e) That fixed, actually help humans, in ways humans themselves perceive as such, varied as those might be.

Your points pertain to "e", and hint at further layers "f, g, h...", so at some point they'll become relevant. But for that "a" to "d" must be dealt with. After that, yes, we can start on "e".

There is, but it's at such a low intuitive level it's extremely difficult to notice without having something else to compare. Here's a universal common sensical value: "no social grouping is predicated upon the unrestricted right of any member to murder any other member for any reason whatsoever". It derives from natural selection: any human social grouping that at some point had developed that as a value went extinct once everyone murdered everyone else, so only those that held alternative values (that it's okay for some members to murder some other members, and for members to murder non-members, under defined criteria) survived, making this a general shared value -- though, evidently, the criteria for when murdering others is and isn't socially acceptable (and must be celebrated or severely punished) vary wildly.

The interesting thing is precisely in that machines may lack human values even at that low level, and it takes a lot of effort to imagine all the ways they can end up doing things that violate these baselines so utterly obvious to us we take them for granted and never ever even state them explicitly, so self-evidently obvious they are to us.