For all they keep doing, the one thing they can't seem to do is make a checkbox to stop being harassed about updates. Apparently there is no way to do to this. It's much too complicated for them to figure out.

Perhaps they should put out a notice asking if anyone has the skills to create the checkbox and make it work.

You are not in the industry. Mutual funds have strict rules about what they can do with the money.

Basically, the manager has to comply with a TON of regulations which control what they can and cannot do with the money. Even things that they can invest in require a lot of reporting. If you ever look at the financials of a mutual fund they tell you things like Net Asset Value, Yield, % large cap vs medium cap, vs small cap vs bonds, etc

https://www.sec.gov/rules-regu...

We think AI is intelligent because it appears to communicate. Bees communicate.

AI is about as dumb (not smart) as bees. They can communicate but they do not understand what they are saying. They have a massive hive to repeatedly do dumb tasks till they give you what you asked for. But you asking is what triggered the action. Your question is the only intelligence involved, what they did was the dumb busy bee work.

LLM are not intelligent, they are artificially stupid.

How do you propose that this would work? Would Flock have access to each police department's database of active cases? That would be a cure worse than the disease.

It's really the same problem that we see with quantum physics -- the subject matter is esoteric enough that common sense can't be used to determine whether what you're listening to is really advanced theory or utter BS (or some combination of the two); they both sound the same, and the situation isn't helped by the presence of large numbers of people who think they know what they are talking about but don't. :/

We need a book that explains how AI technology functions.

There is a huge amount of news and comments, but apparently nothing that helps people understand how AI is developed, and functions.

Just wait until they connect it up to a Robin Hood game.

First, It is up to the defense to pursue an argument. He is claiming no loss = no harm. He did NOT claim Caveat Emptor.

Second, Caveat Emptor only applies if no false statements were made. When you buy a car 'as is', and it does not start. That is your fault for not checking it. Similarly when you buy a mutual fund and do not bother to check that there is a 10% fee, you still have to pay the fee.

He sold a mutual fund, so the money has to go into the fund except for fees. He cannot take the money out of the fund and buy ANYTHING with that, that is fraud.

There is no law that lets a person lie in business. You cannot sell rat meat as steak, cannot sell a sled as a truck, and cannot take money from a mutual fund to contribute to a political campaign or buy real estate.

However, a bunch of billionaires think they can do anything with money they control, which is not true. That would be a crime.

Is there some reason they a) Picked male over female fly brains, and b) mentioned it?

Just seemed weird tome.

If I tell you I am going to invest your money in the stock market but instead go to Vegas and put it all on red, that is fraud. I owe penalties even if Red came up, I doubled the money and I paid you back plus 15%.

You do not get to claim "No one lost money", because otherwise, lots of people will do exactly what I just said.

I get to decide how to risk my money, not the lying shmuck that takes it.