Reminds me of the scene in War Games where Joshua is playing the various games over and over and over:

Jennifer: What is it doing?

David Lightman: It's learning.

Get back to talking about how we're whooping Iran's ass at no cost to oursel-- SHUT UP, I SAID NO COST!!!!1

You won't see this on the Fox tabloid, but the acting Navy Secretary admitted at a Congressional hearing that Iran "blew the hell" out of a naval base in Bahrain such that the USS Abraham Lincoln (sound familiar?) couldn't dock for resupply.

So yeah. Whooping Iran's ass at no cost.

Kids are expected to sit in class for six hours a day then go home and potentially do homework for an hour or two.

The difference is, there are breaks in those six hours. You're in class for 55 minutes, then you get up and walk to your next class, rinse and repeat. Depending on your schedule, breaks could even be longer. You get up and move about. You're not stuck in the same chair for six hours.

Don't forget Paxton gave a lenient sentence to Adam Hoffman who raped a friend's kid for over three years.

No, there was no "empty space" around it. The space itself expanded in the cosmic inflation, per current theory.

Which I've always hated because it makes no sense. If space itself inflated, what did it inflate into? It's illogical, from any perspective, to say the universe was a speck of energy that suddenly expanded to create itself. If it expanded, it had to expand into something. You can't create yourself. If you say that, then all you've done is recreate, "In the beginning ..."

This is why they're so keen on robots. They want guards whose loyalty they can really count on when the mob shows up with a guillotine.

That one might surrender and meekly accept their likely death at the hands of the machine, I can believe. But all of them? This isn't the first such claim we've heard about AI danger.

I believe that Yudkowsky believes what he says he believes, for example. He says shut them all down worldwide, immediately, and if there are rogue nations who don't go along with it then launch air strikes on their data centres - even against a nuclear state. He said that three years ago. That's the thinking of a man who believes it's genuinely likely that the machines will kill us all in the near future.

And this is still considered extremist lunacy. That tells me the rest of them don't believe what he does.

The general public should care because there's apparently a good chance these machines are going to kill them all, very soon.

They don't care because they don't believe that.

When some AI agent of theirs, trying to meet a developer's benchmark test, eventually hacks the power grid or the water supply to a metropolis to help itself to a way around a sandbox environment, then the general public will care. And when that happens they may well drag AI industry CEOs and researchers out of their beds to the nearest lamp-post.

> approximately eight hundred billion ... oops, that's eight hundred million, of course. Ten percent probability, times the current population of the Earth. The expected consequences of allowing the AI industry to continue their work, according to people who are oddly calm about the prospect.

The actual post is behind a login wall, but I don't see from the BBC article that he's even advocating any action. Is he demanding the immediate shutdown of the data centres? Raids on the labs? Coordinated global action to impound and destroy the equipment? Life imprisonment for anybody found training large neural networks? Rogue researchers declared hostis humani generis? There's no mention of it.

That's what I'd be advocating at the very least. Then the question of whether to take direct action personally on top of that would be one of practicality - can I lay my hands on the right equipment, how can I do the most effective damage, do I have access to high value targets, will it be dramatic enough to frighten new recruits away from joining the industry, will others be inspired to follow my example, should I take the time first to form a team for more extensive action, that kind of thing. It wouldn't be a question of whether it should happen, only one of whether those are the right tactics. Yes, in all probability I'd decide I wasn't personally cut out for terrorism or assassination, but not everybody would decide so. It would be a reasonable choice in the circumstances.

If the expected bodycount from the operation of this industry over the next ten years was approximately eight hundred billion, then that would make AI researchers the single most dangerous group of human beings that has ever existed. The National Socialist German Workers' Party, previous title holders for the worst people ever, probably didn't kill even a tenth as many as this man says he expects AI firms to kill in roughly the same timescale. That is the comparison that would frame my thinking about AI researchers and what we should do with them, if I believed what he says he believes.

And I just don't see that kind of thing coming up in these conversations. People calmly and academically discuss their probability estimates as if it's a question of pure theory, not the imminent destruction of all humanity. If they really believed what they say, there would certainly by now be AI Luigis everywhere, data centres would be burning, and people would be quitting the industry all over the world for their own safety. That simply isn't happening. So I don't believe they actually do think that this outcome is likely. Actions speak louder than words, and their actions say they don't believe a word of it.

... then I would be demanding that every single person involved in the AI industry be rounded up and shot. All of them. My former boss, my coworkers, our competitors, all of them. I would be advocating a world in which is was worse to be found with LLM weights on your computer than to be caught with the worst possible kind of CSAM.

But apparently the idea that his former employer might literally kill literally everybody in just ten years' time isn't that big a deal for this guy. Go into the office one day and take a Second Amendment approach to as many of the frontier research team as possible? No... let's just whine about it on the internet!

Which is why I'm not at all convinced he believes this. If he believed that, this action is too small a response. Nothing short of Butlerian jihadism is an appropriate response, if you actually believe this.

You could have stopped at Microsoft Breaks. We just found a previous update from Microsoft breaks the cellular connection in some of our HP laptops. The update flips the IMEI back to the default. We had to get a patch from HP to fix the update.

Details bore me. Describing a person's outfit in detail is filled with information I could not care any less about.

Clearly you don't read any Brandon Sanderson books.

Ah yes, the censorship that still allowed people to see the lies about ivermectin. Clearly an abuse of power to let people see the lies. And no, the technologies in this story were not used by Biden. So another lie which isn't being censored.

Mandatory vaccinations were for a select group of people: i.e. the military and medical workers. No one else was required to get a vaccination.

But please, continue licking RFK, Jr's boots. He needs all the help he can get.

Been creeping in for a bit. First in news, then in the stock ticker, tv, music, books, and now maps.

All passed off as helpful "suggestions."

The ones that really torque me off are "suggestions" in books, tv and music. I've disabled what I can but some of this can't be turned off.

Apple makes enough with hardware alone. They don't need to whoreify the whole "ecosystem."

I let 'em know what I think of it, but that all goes to the bitbucket. No one gives a rip. 2.5 billion is not even a dime's worth of pocket change, to them.

I won't move to Android, because that's Alphabet, ergo 100x worse. So here we are. I feel like Dark Helmet. Surrounded by assholes. Greedy assholes.

At least, for now, apple ads aren't *bam* in your face like others - but a "sponsored" result is an ad by another name.

I"m starting to understand the desire, of some, to move out to the woods, in a cabin, sans grid.