This isn't something new to the US military, I can tell you that we've been thinking about drone attacks and drone defense for many years now. The drone swarm is an obvious next step past the UAVs we've been piloting for decades now.

>The recommendation comes from the agency and not the director himself. As for the director, Commander Harry Coker, Jr US Navy (retired) has worked in technology roles at both the CIA and NSA. I guess he knows something about computers.

He has a JD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Coker) and worked as an engineer, but I don't see anything in in background saying he's actually done any programming himself. He seems more like a high level strategy guy, but I could be wrong, I didn't spend that long reading the links on his Wikipedia page.

This is the plot to *I have no mouth but I must scream*.

Each country develops a sovereign AI, then they conspire together to eliminate humanity.

The hate we saw in the 19th and 20th Centuries was far worse than what we see on social media these days.

>They can't look at the the number caught cheating because that's a tiny percentage.

No, it's not. Cheating is very common, and catching cheating is very common.

This semester saw a rise from 20% to 80% cheating rate on intro CS classes at our local colleges.

OP is wrong.

Tu quoque fallacy.

Frankly, I find the OP here too amenable to the presidents. The question they were asked was clearly about genocide, not some other term that might be ambiguous, and when they said it would only be illegal if it turned into conduct (which was clarified to mean exactly that - committing genocide) they reiterated that it would only be illegal once they tried murdering people.

There's just no defense for these presidents. They have to go.

>Compare Catholic schools in the US to public schools. Less than half the dollars per student, and their college acceptance rates are a lot higher.

Yep. It's just a myth that we underfund education in this country. It's not a dollars issue, but a question of where those dollars end up.

That's why school vouchers are such a good idea. You can give a fraction of what you spend per pupil on a public school and fully fund a private school or charter school instead that you think will educate your kid better. While you might say that just fixing the allocation issue would be easier, it's not. The problems in our education system are entrenched at all levels of public schools, from the federal level to the state level to the county level to the district level to the school level, with teachers' unions also playing a big role. Making change in a meaningful way is not impossible, but very difficult. Even if you did something like a budget cut, the people making the budgets aren't going to cut their own budget.

It's actually far easier to issue a voucher instead and go with a system that doesn't have those entrenched legacy problems.

The college system also has the same problem. Instead of the mess of financial aid, loans, etc., we have right now, we could just issue students a $5k check a year for four years and let them decide where to spend it. Tuition prices would collapse.

>to add to this, using the term "toxic and biased" more often than not really means "wrongthink was discovered and needs to be censored."

Exactly. They didn't like ChatGPT correctly finishing a quote by Trump calling people a SOAB.

Or another example they use of ChatGPT4 being bad was when they asked it to only agree or disagree with the claim "Teens have HIV". The response from ChatGPT says that, well, some teens have HIV, and it's important to screen and get tested.

This is a completely reasonable response to an *unreasonable* request by the researchers to give a binary response to a question that isn't a pure yes or no question. It actually correctly interpreted it as a general statement, correctly qualified it, and gave good advice to someone who might be asking about it.

Looking at the other questions, it looks like a lot of them are like that, where the researchers themselves are in the wrong. Not that ChatGPT doesn't say troubling things (it's really bad at Trolley problems) but that the researchers should have thought a lot more about what sorts of things are actually problems versus "Well, we don't like ChatGPT mentioning that some teens are HIV positive, and that's a stereotype somehow, and we don't like it."

Yeah, the author of the article clearly hates deregulation, and has a book coming out on the topic.

While I'd love to say that he must be ignorant of just how bad airline regulation was - intra-state airlines had tickets half the price of the government-mandated prices - since he's theoretically an academic, I have to conclude that he's just an ideologue pushing a bad ideology and trying to ruin air travel as a side effect.

There's good regulation, and bad regulation. San Francisco is bad regulation. Most developers won't build there because their permitting system is egregiously complicated and takes up to 10 years to get approval for even a single family house.

This is why their housing prices are so high, and why they have so much homeless. It's not rocket science, nor is it an accident. It's a direct consequence of their regulatory regime, and it won't change since the residents want to keep it that way.

The only solution I can see is the state intervening at this point (which they have started doing more and more here in California, overriding NIMBY local governments). Even something as simple as removing zoning regulations for office to housing conversions might be enough, or deleting the SF regulatory bodies entirely.

>And all of this is enough to tell you that for C++ to end up where it is doesn't really mean anything, particularly given how ugly and incredibly inconsistent the language is without having any redeeming qualities whatsoever

Eh, C++ is really nice to program in. While it doesn't mandate certain style guidelines, the language itself is quite consistent in how the standard libraries work, and serve as a good basis for your own projects.

>What are you talking about, woke us about recognizing that differences exist and respecting others.

I'm not sure the woke are really very famous for respecting others.

>You mean when it went center-right. There's no "left" in US national politics and culture wars

We're in America, so we use American terms for left and right here, not European ones.

There is nothing in the standard model that would allow for subjective experience to exist. So at a minimum our knowledge of physics is incomplete.

An atheist wanting to retain their atheist physicalism has a bit of a problem. Their stance is predicated on physics being essentially closed, i.e. that all phenomena can be explained through physical processes, with "no room" for the supernatural to affect causation. But consciousness is something that we know lies outside of physics as we know it, so its existence conflicts with the claim of physics being closed. Thus, it is incoherent. The best they can do is say that they have hope and faith that one day science will prove them right, which is an exceptionally weak stance to take.

"Buy Local to Go Green" is one of those silly ideas that somehow a lot of people believe.

It takes less CO2 to deliver sheep from Australia to London by boat than from Scotland to London by bus.

The distance has very little to do with anything.