Actually, I think CPT invarience means there is a difference. But this only applies to weak-force interactions.

When your starship will run on one anti-matter atom.

Actually, anti-matter factories are possible, but probably not in a strong gravity field surrounded by positive matter. (Also they aren't cheap to power. It takes a lot of power to create mass, and you need to create twice as much as the amount of anti-matter you end up with, even if you get 100% efficiency.)

That's unfair. He didn't improve things (except by closing the strait or Hormuz), but he didn't make things that much worse. We were already increasing the rate of CO2 emission every year.

I suspect a lot of people store that information unencrypted on their computer, so the AI could find it on its own initiative. There may be other ways, but I guess the stupidest one first.

Actually, an AI can't be made legally responsible because current law doesn't recognize it as even a sentient entity, much less a legally responsible one. It's less accountable than a three year old bashing keys at random. But you can also kill it (i.e. the instance you are running) with no accountability.

The company the runs or provides access to the AI, however, is a different matter. But they've got a bunch of fancy lawyers that will argue that it wasn't their fault.

What entity do you believe bears the legal obligations? The AI software? Your local machine? The company that's running the AI? The company that designed the AI? Someone else?

Most of those things can't have legal responsibility. I suppose the companies could, but they've got strong legal departments that will argue otherwise.

Only if it happened a decade or two ago.

No. A court has decided that the stuff emitted by an AI isn't copyright.

They have a *history* of being fraudulent (at least after the fact, I don't know intent). Solar+wind+storage is a lot quicker and, I believe, usually cheaper. And it's got a short enough turn around that we can tell what it's going to cost.

How the **** am I supposed to look into the details of how the contract will be enforced?? I can look an see prior contracts that were evaded by one means or another, several involving nuclear power plants, but that doesn't say about this one. But I would STRONGLY prefer supporting something with a lower down-side, like solar + wind plus some storage mechanism.

The one proposal I saw that I though looked interesting involved closed cycle in a deep well...about as deep as an oil well. Just about anywhere has hot rocks if you go that deep. The question is "Is there a good enough flow of heat for this to continue being useful?". I didn't see an answer to that, so that may still be site specific. Iceland has proven that can make it work when an active volcano is available, and it should work in Yellowstone. But that's shallow depth-site-specific. Can they get it deep enough to work most places? That, IIUC, is currently unknown. Will it be cheap enough to be worthwhile? I think that's also unknown.

The more reasonable reaction is to doubt that he will do as he says. I doubt that he'll do it, even with strings attached. If he actually does it (or legally commits to doing it), that's the time to start looking for the trap.

Do you believe he will? Perhaps in his will...which would, of course, be contested.

That's is you think the load will really be repaid. Past history does not cause me to be optimistic about this, though I haven't looked into the details or how the contract will be enforced. What happens if the company (which?) declares bankruptcy? What if it spins the asset/obligation off into a separate company that declares bankruptcy? It's happened before.

Also the batteries (or other storage). Solar isn't a good source for a large constant load without a LOT of storage. (It *might* still be a better choice, though. But I'd want a mix of solar and wind, and LOTS of storage.)
Too bad geothermal hasn't been well enough developed, but I don't believe it has been.