That is, indeed, one of the problems, but it's not the one the article is discussing.

Compare this to what you would have said last year.

More like the total opposite, I'd say.

I can't imagine what's the business value of having ChatGPT doing a BloodNinja impression. It's not good for PR, it'd risk exclusion in serious environments, school and the like, it'd risk legal trouble, the list goes on. The potential for trouble far outweighs any possibly benefit, which is what? There's only downsides because it'd go wrong in some way sooner rather than later.

No, doubling down on serious, well paying uses and removing controversial ideas of little worth is exactly what looks like a clear, decent strategy here.

Somehow "cheap weapons able to target civilians, but not those well protected" doesn't make me feel happier. And such weapon are clearly only useful for attack, not defense.

Well, arguing from the derivation of the word is just silly, but:
https://founders.archives.gov/...
clearly shows that some of them agreed with that point of view. Hamilton, however, was only one side. Others interpreted it differently.

Actually, all that literally means is that you can carry them. It doesn't say anything about ownership or control.

Calling that a deterrent is whitewashing it. A hypersonic missile is an attack weapon unless it is specifically an anti-missile missile. It's most highly useful in first strike situations.

Actually, it's one thing to announce, it's another to manufacture at scale. If this is real, it will be a severe threat in 5 years, perhaps a bit less.

What's the range? I really doubt that this is the new MAD, but it does add a new and exciting amount of uncertainty, and increase the advantage of attack over defense.

"Well regulated" is not well defined. It definitely didn't originally mean "government approved"...or at least it didn't mean that to everyone who put their signature to it.

You're being practical, not logical. Logically the 2nd amendment implies that the right to own arms should not be restricted. AFAIK, it's never been interpreted that way by the courts.

There are lots of other places where the clear logical meaning of the US Constitution is always ignored. Often for very sound reasons.

This happens also in LOTS of other parts of the legal system. If an AI ever starts interpreting and enforcing the laws in a literal fashion nearly everyone is going to be hurt. (Sometimes the laws were even written with the intent of selective enforcement, but often I believe people just didn't notice that they implied things that weren't intended.)

What I want is a Yosarian mode.

When I switched off MSWindows, what I wanted was Windows 95b compatibility. It never showed up. It still hasn't. I've intentionally avoided later versions because of terms in the licensing.

These days the only things that haven't showed up on Linux, or had better replacements are a few music programs (more my wife's field than mine) and a few games...that I may have lost the CDs for.

It sounds as if MS is aiming to turn OpenAI into a wholly owned subsidiary. They're both so horrible that I'm not sure whether that would be good or bad.

However I don't remember the Florida experiment reporting dangerous amounts of heavy metals. That's going to need to be considered.