There's no problem with control if you don't give it too much power.

The not-very-subtle issue is that regardless of the limits put on hardware, the people using the hardware may not be subject to effective limits. Which is how we got Putin, Hitler, Trump, Pol Pot, McCarthy, McConnell, Stalin, Mao, etc.

People have a disturbing habit of taking up crazy and harmful ideas regardless of the source. All an AI really has to do is source the ideas. There will be people who will be delighted to take it from there.

Major Pain would like a word.

The point is, that there is no sound scientific basis for claiming "it is all just known Physics" at this time

Since everything, literally everything, we think we understand today has fallen squarely into "100% just known physics", yes, we can have pretty high confidence that the things we learn tomorrow will do the same. I do agree it is (vaguely, hand-wavingly, extremely low-order probability) possible we might need some new physics, but given the physical constraints of our fleshy machinery, (a) it seems really, really unlikely and (b) without discovering a mechanism that requires same, there's little point in claiming that is the case.

At various points in time we didn't understand X, but later on, we did understand X, and every time that threshold is crossed, the answer has been "100% known physics." To say that because we don't understand Y yet means "might not be known physics" seems to slyly imply that it might not be physics at all, which our experience with reality does not support. Just in case you were leaning that way.

While it would be magnificently interesting to find something that does not fall into that classification, no one has done that yet, and there's no particular reason to expect anyone to, either. Because it has never happened.

We don't know how the brain works or what consciousness even is. Until we figure those out there will not be any real progress towards strong AI

It's worth noting that some developments come from somewhat randomly throwing things at the wall to see if they stick. Often, those doing the throwing are just as surprised as the rest of us when something does stick.

Consider: To have a machine (a robot, more or less) formed as human arm throw a baseball well, the usual approach takes some really heavy math. We, on the other hand, do it without understanding that math at all. There are a lot of folks working on various approaches to what we can loosely call "computational intelligence", and it is possible (not saying likely, just possible) that this will result in an intelligence.

After all, that's how nature did it. Multiple times. In multiple ways. Without knowing how intelligence worked.

This:

I thought the shopping bot was at best a slight upgrade on searching Amazon

Talk about setting a low bar... Amazon's search is one of the worst, quite possibly the worst, searches out there. Not only does it not find what you fucking clearly asked to find and is missing even the most basic search amenities such as wildcarding and quoted exact phrasing, it spams the search output with complete product irrelevancies, artificially up-floated overpriced results, and actual advertising for... well, whatever, but most likely nothing to do with your search.

When doing search engines for my clients, I use Amazon and Pinterest as examples of exactly how poorly searching can be implemented.

Iâ(TM)d think they would want them to assist in prosecuting work accident / safety failure issues.. there isnâ(TM)t a huge expectation of privacy on a factory floor.

Meat is defined as the flesh of animals

Yes, and cultured meat is unquestionably the flesh of animals. It's grown directly from real animal cells, real animal DNA, etc. Therefore, obviously, it's meat. Trying to say it isn't is either a demonstration of a complete ignorance of the science, or disingenuous nonsense unworthy of the claimant or those the claims are being made to.

The USDA's definition doesn't say "has to be from a slaughtered animal carcass."

Fully hyphenated would be better, "Lab-Grown-Meat" or perhaps "Cultured-Meat".

Sure, seems fine. Might want to call the other stuff "Slaughtered-Meat", too. Just so everyone's clear.

Related, I 100% object to calling plant-based products "meat." They aren't meat by any reasonable definition. Calling them meat is outright deceptive. Being a curmudgeonly crank, whenever it comes up in conversation, I say, "Oh... you mean salad. :)

So banning the use of the word "meat" with respect to lab grown would be a fine move to avoid possible consumer confusion. Call the lab grown somethings else.

That makes no sense at all. You're saying "let's not call meat, meat."

Just call it "Lab-Grown Meat" or perhaps "Cultured Meat" as these accurately describe what it is and provide a clear distinction for those who are concerned with it, and go on with progress.

Buy an EV and keep meat on the menu.

The objective — far from met as yet — is to keep meat on the menu; the idea is to get animals off the menu.

And yes, by all means, EVs are the obvious way forward. But moving to an EV represents a major change in consumer habits, at least in the USA, and it's going to take a while both to achieve consumer buy-in and to see the charging infrastructure become ubiquitous. Plus, replacement cycle times have extended because vehicles are lasting somewhat longer and replacement costs have risen for similar vehicle types.