Given the option between (1) it did it by itself, (2) it did it because we told it to, or (3) it did it in response to a prompt where we expected it to do something else, I can guess why they choose option 1, even if what they describe sounds like #3.

Presumably, the user put in some variation of "You said this ticket existed, but I checked and there's no ticket. Why did you say that?"

Except you still need city lights for the rest of the night (outside those few minutes when this is available, being in low-earth orbit) or cloudy nights.
Which means you aren't reducing the major capital and maintenance costs of city lights,

Lighting up the battlefield for both sides is noticeably less advantageous than lighting it up for yourself while the enemy stays in the dark. Especially with the limit of a few minute period of time tied to the Earth's orbit. A bit of light also doesn't solve the problem of using 4M interceptors for 40k drones -- it's still a 4M interceptor whether you spot the drone with radar or someone's eyes.

This seems a pitch for capital rather than an idea to solve a problem.

Automated factory floors have been around a very long time. US manufacturing already uses robots extensively on the factory floor -- and in terms of output is competitive and stable absent geopolitical turmoil. There's no reason to expect an large-language model's optimization solution is going to beat existing approaches to optimization and improvement. Plus video footage seems a terrible information source for the stated goals.

And for the specific concerns of China, AI analysis of video footage isn't going to 'fix' the advantage of significant government subsidies into favored industries.

Now I know to use the metal zip ties if it's in range of their mouth.

Meh. Phone companies don't keep a transcript of those calls, and those calls are between parties unrelated to the phone company.

OpenAI kept the records, and is a party to each one of the transcribed conversations.

Only if you only look at information packaged as entertainment.

I agree that it'd be better to have active labor law enforcement by the government, but clearly that's unlikely in fair bits of the country.

You instead apparently believe laws simply need not exist and illegal behavior immaterial. There is an existing standard for when it becomes work that excludes your parking example and includes turning on required equipment.

Meh, what you actually would note from recent events is the US government worked despite the Constitution (when it worked). It wasn't checks and balances or specific design of the Constitution -- it was the people and culture that dictated bounds of accepted behavior.

The document itself is a disaster, especially if one tries to use a lawyer's grasp of history to justify their favored outcome of the day.

That's not a problem with the pedestrians -- it's a problem with the road planning.

If there's enough foot traffic that you'll get a constant stream for long periods, the planners should have put in a light if they want cars to pass.

If it's a one-off random surge for a few minutes, the cars have to wait. There is no right of way for cars to push through an in-use pedestrian crossing.

In the 5-thick crowd example, it's pretty clear that the status quo was actually maximizing the rate at which people (whether in cars or on foot) crossed the intersection. Cars use too much space to compete with that flow rate.

Plus often including content relevant to different more popular essay prompt.

North Korea actually has nukes that can reach the US (unlike Israel). As do Russia and China. By that logic, we should be shipping defensive aid to North Korea, China and Russia.

Israel carpetbombing the local area with nukes is not going to be huge deal for people outside the strike zones. It will not trigger a long-term nuclear winter, etc. Though I wouldn't want to be Jew elsewhere in the aftermath if they did try to trigger armageddon; it's hard to see how a fallback plan that involves launching nukes in all directions over Europe, Asia and Africa, doesn't trigger a massive wave of retaliation on local populations unconnected to Israel.

You are creating a arbitrary equivalence.

There is no natural equivalence saying that all overseas commitments must have equal strategic value. Supporting none or supporting all are both signs of irrationality.

To be fair, the article sounds like the manufacturer mostly fuming after their attempt to block use failed. If there's a followup on the trains being removed from services and the hackers successfully sued, it'd become a case of inappropriate laws.

Ironically or not, this is a major reason science isn't blind to the 'who'. Variations on just writing down numbers, or selectively keeping numbers have been around for as long as the scientific method.