I don't know whether they are believable or not, because I found them too boring to pay attention to, even with the faces shifting. (Morphing might have been more interesting.)

There are places where it happened to people. It isn't widespread. And I'm not sure how many people were affected.
OTOH, they were used as the reason/excuse for raised electricity prices in several places, and I never heard that the prices went back down.

To my eyes, they *aren't* releasing it to their targeted market, they're releasing it to a test market, where they can improve it with large scale testing. When it gets good enough, they'll push it to the intended market (marketing) at a relatively high price. (Cheaper than people, though.)

It seems clear to me that the case they're aiming for is marketing. The problem is that they need to cross uncanny valley. (OTOH, it also seems they're getting close to doing that.)

That doesn't change the argument. The water that dilutes the waste isn't, itself, radioactive. If it's soluble, the dissolved mix is going to be heavier. What can change it is if there are strong currents near the location, and here "strong" doesn't mean very strong, but just enough to keep the heavier parts from settling lower through turbulence. Another thing that can change it is if it is adsorbed by passing organic molecules (e.g. the skin of fish or shell of crabs...but fish are more mobile).

(C) is the only one of those the AI companies are really concerned about -- they want to stave off model collapse for as long as possible. The problem is that AI generates so much content that the ratio of AI-generated data to human-generated data keeps rising, and sooner or later there simply won't be much human-generated data left to anything to consume. At that point they'll either have to figure out to ingest AI-generated content without causing degradation, or they'll have to accept that AIs have gotten as smart as they will ever get, and it's all downhill from there.

It's worse than that. It was trained on the internet. Rule 34 has a more general form that doesn't only apply to porn.

Five that I can think of off the top of my head. Of course, China is the big one. The others trail badly.

I'm not sure "the design sucked" is accurate, but certainly the training did. One should expect that if something has a "most important goal", it will do whatever it finds necessary to accomplish that goal.

this explains it

Maybe. Given this government, I tend to believe it. OTOH, I remember cable-TV contracts...and that makes me quite dubious. Local governments were making deals that benefited the companies and excluded competition right and left, and it sure wasn't good for the users.

I'm pretty sure that's a false assumption. Most radioactive elements with a half-life longer than 20 years are a lot heavier than a water molecule. H20 weighs about 20 protons+neutrons and is a lot larger than any atom, so the other stuff will be a lot denser.

For any particular one, yes. For the claim for an entire category... that needs proof.

It's not super intelligence because it currently has tremendous blind spots. But so do people, just different ones. I *think* that blind spots are a necessary feature of the compression used to take a huge volume of signal and compress it into something that will fit into storage.

OTOH, note that the "blind spots" are only "relatively blind". And can be worked around. Actual human 6D geometricians exist, but they approach it via symbolization. (Actually, they are really n-dimensional geometricians, but some specialize on problems in 6 dimensions.) But an AI could presumably be designed to work natively in 6 dimensions (or any specified number), however for most problems this would not be an advantage, but rather the contrary.

Note that human thinking is basically either planar or linear. To handle 3-space we use various short-cuts than enable dimensional reduction. (Unless you are counting time as one of the dimensions...then it get more complex.) Compare the way you play 3-d tic-tac-toe toe the way you play 2-d tic-tac-toe. That's not really fair as the 3-d one is inherently more complex, but it give you an idea.)

The electoral college was necessary to get the states to agree to join under a single government. It wasn't, exactly, corruption. And it wasn't argued that it was "for democracy". States were where the power was at the time. Even in the 1860's many people were more loyal to their state than to the federal government.

And I think the direct election of Senators was a mistake. Democracy when actually practiced routinely tramples on the rights of minorities.