Until it hallucinates and adds something that wasn't there or changes the meaning significantly. In my experience, AI is really good at screwing things up in ways that nobody expects. And if the people making the changes aren't subject-matter experts, but are just doing drive-by edits to try to make things more digestible, they might not notice the errors if they are subtle enough. Allowing any random person to do stuff like that could potentially cause a lot of damage really quickly.

Until it steals the chart blatantly from somebody's published book, and Wikipedia gets sued for copyright infringement. Wikipedia isn't just trying to protect itself from erroneous data. It's trying to protect itself from liability. With user-uploaded content, the user can self-certify that they have the right to upload it, and apart from user incompetence, that's usually going to be good enough. With AI-generated images, it is impossible for a user to know for certain whether what they are uploading is infringing, and would be hard to later prove which AI generated the diagram to transfer the liability to the AI company.

But the biggest risk, IMO, would be asking it to make a chart with numbers from some table. It could manipulate the numbers, and if someone isn't checking closely, they might not see the error, but the incorrect chart could easily mislead people. AI-based chart generation seems way more likely to introduce errors than a human copying and pasting the table into a spreadsheet and generating the chart with traditional non-AI-based tools.

And after a few months, people will complain that the content is constantly wrong, the editors over there will give up trying to keep the error rate under control, and anyone with a clue will come running back to Wikipedia.

The conservative right wouldn't have voted for Harris anyway. That's not why he won.

He won because the Democrats care about whether their candidate stumbles across words and speaks incoherently, so Biden was pressured to step down, and Harris was forced to step up at the last second, with nobody really knowing who she was or who she stood for, thus limiting her ability to bring voters out.

He won because the Democrats weren't clueful enough to get Biden to fully step down and make Harris the next President immediately, which would have given the public months of seeing her actually lead the country.

If he really was struggling, then he won because Biden did not step down and let Harris take power before people started questioning whether he was fit to be in office.

He won because Biden did not recognize that he would have a hard time running again and allow an open primary.

He won because the Republicans were able to paint it as a coverup of Biden's feeble-mindedness, and the Democrats weren't able to show people that struggling mentally when you're physically fatigued isn't inherently a sign of dementia.

He won because Democrats had too much class to use the dementia card on Trump, either first or in retaliation.

He won because too many people conveniently forgot what a disaster he was during his first term, and too many people gave him a pass for the economic damage he did, and the folks prosecuting him for crimes were way too slow so it was still going at the next election.

He won because Kamala Harris was a center-right Democrat who tried to put on progressive clothes to get votes, then swung back towards the center again to get votes. Her time as a prosecutor draws into question her progressive bona fides. That meant the left didn't come out to vote.

I really don't understand why the only two women candidates that Democrats have run have at least appeared to be at the authoritarian end of their party. That doesn't win the presidency unless you're running as a Republican. Both of these candidates were mistakes. There are plenty of women in the Democratic party who would have been better choices.

In short, there were so many things wrong with her candidacy that it's hard to count them all. Gender and race were likely not a meaningful part of why she lost, or at least there are so many other confounding factors that it would be impossible to pin it on either of those.

One proton vs Antiproton explosion releases 1,877 MeV (mega-electronvolts). All the antimatter they transfered would not give off 200,000 MeV

1 foot pound of energy contains more than 8 trillion MeV

So basically, it could be happening inside your body and you would never notice it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Tracks at 8 km away, hits at 2 km away. Process takes seconds.

You are thinking 'not reliable' means they hit the target less than 5% of the time.

We are thinking 'not reliable' means they blow up the ship that tries to launch them.

This is a fallacy.

What happens is this. Someone makes a product with a 0.1% reliability. They sell it but warn it is not that high quality. Then someone says "If they are at least 10% reliable, it is worth it and buys the product.

Their is no evidence these are 10% reliable. Everything about it screams these are a new cheap, almost worthless missile. Particularly the use of the word 'hypersonic' to describe a missile that the US would never call hypersonic (we reserve that word for advanced, hard to hit hypersonic cruise missiles, not hypersonic ballistic missiles that are easy to destroy)

He's basically a newborn :-)

Yes, but there is an important difference: TV had to appeal to an average audience member. Meanwhile the social media algorithms are intentionally working against you, trying to specifically find and use your triggers.

That's quite a different intent there.

On the TV, parents could also check the program for what they thought was suitable for their kid or not. They could watch the same program, even if not in the same room. Social media is a lot more personal and a lot harder to track and filter.

Hard disagree.

Not everything is subject to hype cycles. A lot of especially the SMALLER musicians, for example, basically live off their back catalog. I routinely buy the entire collection of artists that I freshly discover and fall in love with. And I totally feel that it is right that I pay them for music they made, no matter when they made it.

What is an abomination is copyright terms of DEATH + 70 years. Or whatever Disney pushed it to by now. I'm ok with inheritance of creative work, but it should not put the children into "never have to work in their entire life" territory.

Then again, there are two aspects: Creative control and money. I think that the Tolkien estate did a generally good job of protecting the integrity of JRR's works. Well, if we ignore Rings of Power, I have no idea what lies Amazon told them to get the approval for that shitshow.

And let's not forget that coypright law is also what protects GPL software.

"You are too smart to be a cop...."

LMAO That is what they tell the ID10T's that can't be trusted with gun, badge or any responsibilty. Almost any reputable force requires a degree and advancement requires a higher degree. I am not saying a degree shows intelligence or more importantly common-sense, but I'd say your "buddies" might be more suited for the Marines.

You don't. That's what parents are for. Parents taking care of their own kids scales easily, because the number of parents is linear in the number of kids being monitored. Facebook taking of everyone's kids scales exponentially in the number of users, because anybody could be talking to any kid.

What they should be suing for are better tools for parents to monitor their kids' activity on Facebook. If you give the parents that, and if you force child accounts to have an associated parent account, then the responsibility falls on the parents, as it should be.

Any other approach would be insane beyond reason.

There are two articles on the home page right now about Meta losing a court case. I think you meant to post this in the other one. This one is about social media addiction.

What does age verification have to do with social media addiction? Did you mean to post this in the *other* article on the home page about Meta losing a court case? :-D

What, exactly, do they think the alternatives are?

Facebook has over 3 billion users. If they output an average of twenty artifacts (posts, replies, direct messages, or images/videos) per day, that's 60 billion outputs. If 1% of those are videos that are an average of three minutes long, that's 1.8 billion minutes of video, and if the other 99% take thirty seconds to moderate, that's another 29.7 billion minutes, for a total of 31.5 billion minutes per day to moderate.

That's 65.6 million workdays of content to moderate per day. Adjusting for people working only 5 days per week, that's about 92 million people required to moderate it.

For context, that is approximately the entire adult population of Mexico. The entire country. They would literally have to employ an entire moderately large country to do this without AI.

So what, exactly, do these lawyers think is the alternative? For Facebook, IMO, the right answer is to require anyone under 18 to link a parent account and give the parent account updates on what their kid is doing every day. Shift the responsibility to the parents where it belongs. The idea of Facebook parenting your child is idiotic and is an intractable problem (because the social graph increases exponentially as the user count increases linearly), so if that's what they actually want, then I fully expect this to be overturned on appeal.

You are correct that it is far more difficult to shoot down 500 missiles. But the article is not talking about them as a low tech, mass attack.

Instead they are presenting them as an advanced attack that is cheap and the US cannot defeat because we do not have things like it.

It might be an effective missile - in the right circumstance. But I did not say the missiles were worthless. I said the article was a bunch of propaganda and countered it.

As for your points (which were much smarter and honest than the article):
1) The US does not only use fancy stuff that is a million a pop. The Phalanx shoots down missiles with bullets costing dollars per shot. https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/w...
2) The US uses some weapons designed to take out a bunch of close missiles with one shot.
3) Much of the US anti-missile technology is to make sure the missile MISSES rather than hits. Chaff, moving the ship, flares, and other electronic counter measures are very effective. Now a days they are making drones designed to attract missiles. And this thing can in no way target submarines.