Molecules that stay stable in water and start vibrating and destroying all cells touching them when exposed to near-infrared light? Sounds like the perfect doomsday weapon.

First of all, AI stands to reduce costs of some things. For example Google showed that it can predict the weather with a lot less computing power than current modelling. It's likely that inference will end up replacing other heavy computing tasks, for example rendering.

Inference will be seriously optimised, in both hardware and software, once it gets to the stage of being ubiquitous. The cost of electricity will have to be passed down to the consumer, so AI companies have every incentive to lower their cost as much as possible.

This goes to a lesser extent to training. Obviously training will also become more efficient with future hardware, but model sizes are likely to grow too. However, when we get to a stage where we have a good enough models for ubiquitous consumer use, i.e., a product phase rather than research phase, I think it's reasonable to expect more gradual release of new models, which will compensate for the high training cost.

There are two main problems with this argument.

First is that about half the Jewish people live in the US, and their government isn't doing anything directly to the Palestinians. Talking about "Jewish people choose not to stop their government" is meaningless.

Secondly, do you honestly think that any people in any country can directly stop their government from doing anything? That's just a meaningless call.

The research was in the UK, so it's UK-focused, not Australia-focused.

It should still be better to the environment than the same hardware on land, as explained.

The article says: "The rise of AI has fed a host of concerns, including the fear that it could be used to disrupt the democratic process, turbocharge fraud, or lead to dramatic job loss, among other harms."

AI isn't limited to what chat models produced by the US. Sure, these could also be used for fake news and fraud, and there's probably not much that could be done about that, but other players could develop their own models, and use them to do whatever they want, including disrupting the democratic process and perpetrating fraud.

What countries need to think only how we make AI safe internally, but how we combat AI geared to disrupt our lives.

(As for AI leading the dramatic job loss, that's unrelated to this topic, and something that we need to understand how to adapt to, rather than stop. If AI can do some jobs better than humans, there's no point in humans doing them.)

Well, if the machine produced an exact copy, or even approximate copy, that argument might have been relevant. But that's not what's happening.

A kid's homework about a book (or any other resource) would include reading the book, summing it up and quoting parts from it. That's completely within fair use. If it wasn't, the school system wouldn't have been able to exist. That's also what the AI is doing, reading the source material and using it both to learn language and produce answers.

I haven't even tried to get into the methodology, which I'm sure is flawed, but this report is just an opinion piece by activists (Greta Thunberg and Njoki Njehu). It's annoying to read it, as it conflates the idea with activism unrelated to climate, such as mentioning that the 20 wealthiest people are all white and 90% men.

This doesn't mean that the ideas are bad. Taxing the rich more is certainly a good idea. However, it does make it harder for me to take this seriously.

https://aviationweek.com/busin...

This explains why the navigation system fails, and explained how military navigation systems combat this problem.

Dapper licensed Disney figures in a desperate attempt to make NFT somewhat attractive.

I hate seeing articles that pick a meaningless figure, which often happens, as this kind of article is about inflaming people, not informing them.

When a chart shows "real-estate agent count by country" and shows the US with 1.6 million and Canada with 160 thousand and there's not even a mention that the US has about 340M people and Canada about 39M, this is complete negligence in reporting, IMO. Population isn't perhaps the best measure here, perhaps the number of real estate deals is a better one, but it's a readily available figure. The US has about 4.7 agents per 1000 people and Canada 4.1. The difference isn't this start.

And sure, the UK and Australia do have significantly less (and it would be interesting to compare to the number of real estate deals), but still, that chart is meaningless as is.

AI characters would still be based on training using images of real people. One would have to get their permission.

We're paying for Netflix, Disney+, Prime Video and a local service, and all of them together still cost less than we used to pay for cable.

While content segregation is annoying, prices are still not too bad.

Since the people responding choose to do so, rather than being randomly selected, and those who try the survey might also decide not to finish it, the results will likely be heavily biased towards people who have a strong opinions about the questions asked. Seemingly one opinion is "I wouldn't mind leaving my job".

It's unfortunate that most likely lawmakers and the general public will think of how to prevent these job losses instead of how to adapt to a future where a lot fewer people need to work.

At least in the US. The EU might take it more seriously and actually get us a nicer future.