How does a person with an EV have a pregnant wife. What if you just plugged it in and she goes into labour?
True that! This happens to me every other week, so I clearly need to plan my big budget purchase to account for this scenario.
Have you never seen a new hire that got past management and team reviews, and then in their first weeks turned out to be a bad idea?
This doesn't seem to be the case here though. There were no "first weeks". The guy was fired as soon as the White House got wind of the hire. It doesn't appear to be an issue of competency; rather it's an issue of loyalty to Trump.
Now, picture an aging BMW with panels here and there no longer functioning, out of sync with the color of the rest of the car. Or worse, flashing haphazardly.
I'd actually like to see that - it would be a very cyberpunk image. Like something from Blade Runner or Akira!
I can see how being born hearing and then going deaf causes suffering, but I don't see how being born deaf does.
"Suffering" is probably not the correct word here - if you're born deaf, not hearing is normal for you. However, a deaf person is excluded - not by their fault, of course - from large areas of global culture; somebody born deaf will never be able to enjoy Beethoven's Ode to Joy (or whatever your favorite song is), never hear their child laugh, never go asleep to the sound of rain. As a deaf person, maybe you never had a chance to live those experiences. Would you choose to deny them to your child if you could give them that chance?
The company I used to work for data-mined telemetry to find out what product features people actually use. Would that be banned?
If linked in any way to the identity of the user then yes, it should be banned. If used for anything beyond finding out what product features people use (for example, selling usage data to insurance or ad companies) then yes, it should be banned. If collected without the user being clearly notified this is happening, and without the user's explicit opt-in then yes, it should be banned.
(...)
Consumers get no relief from the additional costs of the obviously illegal tariffs but do have the privilege of having their tax dollars pay for the interest on the obviously illegal tariffs
You forgot one final item:
A considerable percentage of the most affected customers blame the additional costs on the previous administration and continue to vote for the same people...
Replacing a career path that most participants want to do (or at least claim to want to do) obsoletes the human race.
(...)
It's also understandable to replace humans in jobs where computers/robots can do it better and it matters. Soon robot surgeons will be the clear best choice.
But the arts? Why - aside from maximizing bullshit profits for faceless corporations - would we want to deprive the throngs of aspiring artists? Sure, sure, it someone's crap at it they should find a different job. But why are we even contemplating AI music when there's a nearly limitless supply of people who are quite talented but there isn't a slot for them in the money machine
I think you're contradicting yourself, and also being unintentionally insulting towards artists. You say surgeons should be replaced by AI because the work the surgeon does matter, but artists shouldn't - meaning that the artists' work doesn't really matter. You say this is how humanity can avoid obsolescence. Do you really think humanity will avoid obsolescence by ceding things that matter to AI and limiting itself to the trivial pursuits?
But there are other problems with your post. You say artists should be privileged, because they enjoy their work. Well, artists aren't the only ones that enjoy their work: many physicians have chosen their career from a sincere desire to help others. Yet, you say that the physician's enjoyment of his work doesn't matter, because AI can do a better job. Well, what if AI can do a better job than some, or most artists? Why shouldn't the AI be allowed to do so?
Also, you're seeing the issue from a single side: the side of the artists - the art producers. There are however two sides here: the producers of art, but also the consumers of art. You're saying consumers shouldn't be allowed access to AI art, because this would "deprive the throng of aspiring artists" who are somehow owed a living by the rest of humanity. You say regular people, non-artists, should be forced to support those aspiring artists, even if their production isn't as good as AI. This doesn't make sense to me.
Now, we can have a very inconclusive discussion about what "art" is, and whether whatever AI produces is "art", or whether it's missing some ineffable je ne sais quoi that human art has. I personally think that AI in art is just a tool. Somebody can use AI to create works that represent their vision or ideas, just like they can use a pencil or a brush. This person may lack the training or tools to materialize their vision using traditional means - but they can use AI to get over those limitations and create something. I don't believe this makes them less of an artist, just like I don't think a Photoshop artist is less of an artist because he doesn't use paint and canvas.
We, uhh... We don't talk about Munich.
The problem is the LLM can't be held liable for mistakes.
In reality members of congress, presidents, billionaires and other privileged classes aren't held liable for much of anything either, so it won't make any practical difference.
It doesn't apply to humans at all though. We choose to lie, LLMs don't have a clue.
That's not true at all.
People often recall things differently from the way they happened. Human memory is malleable, and can lose accuracy when presented with misleading information post facto, or else people make up things to fill in gaps in memory, and sincerely believe those false memories to be true. They don't choose to lie; it's the way the human brain works. Some of those hallucinations can be shared by large groups of people - see the Mandela effect.
[The Donut battery] Looks like it's roughly the same energy/kg as gasoline
How do you reckon this? The Donut Lab's web site quotes 400 Wh/kg which is a bit better than Lithium-ion but far from the 12000 Wh/kg of gasoline.
See I bought that bit until the next sentence said they handed in their 2 weeks a day ago. Can't be that many engineers quitting the day before it was posted.
This could be misdirection though, for defense in depth. Posting from the library and using a burner laptop are the first layer of protection - they make it more difficult to track the leaker's IP or identify him by the hardware he used, but the information in the message is still only accessible to a smallish group of people. Adding a bit more confusion could be the second layer and intended to mislead the investigators into focusing on people who quit recently.
I'm already super annoyed with amazon putting in hints to order things into alexa.
Honestly, what did you expect? The problem starts with the fact you have Alexa at all. Alexa doesn't belong to you, even if you paid for it; it's Amazon's minion, and once you let it into your house it will work for Amazon's benefit, not yours.
I mean, the whole scheme of things nowadays is to identify a scapegoat, shame him/her profoundly, and move along.
I don't know about "nowadays": seeing how the "scapegoat" tradition is mentioned in Leviticus, the scheme has been used for at least 2500 years (if you agree with current estimates of Leviticus being written around 500 BC), and probably much longer.
On the contrary, I'd say the scheme isn't as popular today, at least in America. The current administration doesn't bother loading a goat with the sins of the community and punishing or sacrificing the goat instead of the sinners anymore. They just deny the sins exist, or blame the opposition; I'm sure this change is popular among goats, but I don't personally believe it's an improvement.
You can trust your OS and hardware because it wasn't vibe coded.. Try again.
How do you know that though? Ken Thompson called out the risk of trusting trust more than 40 year ago. I doubt you solder together your own hardware. As to the OS, even if you build it from source, can you verify each component to guarantee it wasn't developed with AI or with bad intentions?
In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis
