Different kind of theatre.

I thought they were thinking someone had noticed a bomb, and was trying to alert for help, rather than a bomber being dumber than a bomber.

Doesn't this place the business at the mercy of the shareholder's whims?

Don't this just make them chase never-ending profit to the detriment of all?

In your case it might simply be that there was not enough of this kind of tasks in the training data.

I agree in general, but not with this strong phrasing. I've let AI build a good amount of non-trivial code. But my consistent experience is that it works best when guided by an experienced coder who can correct it, and when implementing well-known algorithms rather than coming up with novel solutions.

Example: I let it write up a quadtree implementation in a language for which there was no ready solution online. It took 2-3 correcting prompts to get a good result. I could've done it myself but it would've likely taken a few hours to get it all right instead of the half or so hour it took with AI. The important part for me was that there's nothing unknown in how to implement a quadtree. All the AI needs to do is take the 100s of existing implementations and translate them into a different language.

True but too simplified. The Luddites had an entirely different motivation: The fact that factories now employed women and children at very low rates meant that the men lost their status in the family as bread winners and head of household. That was a major social disruption, which we don't have with AI.

I'd compare it more to teamsters or wagoners when cars became common. Your job is threatened by a different way of doing the same thing, a way to which your skills don't cleanly transition. Some choose to pick up the new tech, some want the old ways to persist.

In the end, coachmen became chauffeurs, because rich people prefer to be driven around oder driving themselves, no matter if it's a horse or an engine doing the pulling. But much fewer teamsters and wagoners became truck drivers.

BOTH of them? :-)

The exact scenario we warned about when the discussions about this "responsible disclosure" nonsense started. Someone needs a reminder that letting you know your software sucks is a courtesy, not something you can demand.

Yeah, their slaughtering of possibly tens of thousands of protesters was clearly a sign of upcoming concessions.

Dictators lose when they make concessions. They stay in power when they double down. That's the hard lesson of a hundred years or so of dipshits becoming big boss by military coup or revolution. Those who put absolutely every penny into propaganda and oppression tend to hang on to power the longest.

And given what the IRGC and the regime have done to the Iranian people and how much they're loved in the rest of the world, staying in power is literally a life-or-death matter for them. The day the regime falls, we'll see all the Ayatollahs and minions hanging from trees.

We likely won't.

They made it very clear that they are monitoring and restricting Internet access, and the fact that even during an active war they went on to sentence and hang protesters makes it abundantly clear what will happen to anyone sharing information with the world that they'd rather not see on the world news.

I'm not sure the Pope's opinion matters, but it is ironic that evidence suggests that sections were written via AI: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GbWwesBnetyiomxEH/many-portions-of-magnifica-humanitas-appear-to-be-ai-written.

I've never seen generators on cell towers, and the batteries last a few hours. They're meant to cover the occasional western world power outage, not a major one.

As I've pointed out before, I have an actual PhD in number theory. I've explicitly discussed here specific results which are due to me and linked even to one of my papers before. You should be able to think that maybe, just maybe, people who are subject matter experts might know what they are talking about, and maybe know something you don't. But for some reason that possibility seems to be one you immediately and completely discount.

The proof structure here is somewhat simple, enough that any algebraic number theorist can follow most of the argument. But that isn't because it is a counterexample. There are occasions where a counterexample requires an extremely difficult, delicate, construction and there are times where a proof of the claim in question is surprisingly straightforward. This is the sort of mistake that one makes if one a) Doesn't know as much about number theory as one thinks one does and b) have a lot of motivated reasoning going on to discount the significance of the result.

I'm a mathematician, so there's a chance that I maybe, just maybe know what I'm talking about it here. You appear to be using an extremely narrow definition of "leverage" and then insisting anyone who doesn't use your definition is wrong. But whether one insists on an overly narrow definition of leverage or not, the central point remains: when people make mathematical discoveries, they are building on and using existing ideas. Whether you object to the word "leverage" there isn't relevant to that central point.