Uh no, because every feature has to be developed and tested and working smoothly on both operating systems .. the x86 CPUs are 6 years old .. the feature set will get out of sync really fast to accommodate it. Think about it every time someone comes up with a new feature the x86 engineer would exclaim "wait, I can't support that with reasonable perf!". At some point, like maybe last week, due to dependencies and things like that, the source will have IFDEFs that basically exclude old x86 from every feature. You really think babysitting that is valuable or best use of an engineer's time?

Incorrect. Computer misuse within the US, regardless of where the individuals who are doing the misusing are located, is under US jurisdiction. This is long-established. Laws dealing with multi-jurisdictional issues (such as patents/copyrights, illicit interstate commerce, sex tourism, computer misuse) are old-hat.

Attacking US servers located in US territory is an attack carried out within the US, regardless of where the keyboard warrior is.

Now, if the servers attacked are in Ireland, then they're also covered by EU jurisdiction (no matter what the US likes to think).

The law is the law, and nobody, in any nation, is immune. A fact a lot of nations like to pretend they're somehow immune to. They aren't and there will always be a price to pay for such cavalier attitudes.

A calculator can do arithmetic much faster than a human can.

A google search can find web pages way faster than any human can.

LLM is another class of traditionally human-like but not human things happening, in some contexts "good enough" or "better than a human" in others not really applicable, but it's not directly comparable to human thinking.

If a place is cheap to live, then your life is just as cheap to those running it.

In the end, there's a certain minimum cost for running things effectively and if the taxes don't reflect that, then as far as the corporations and politicians are concerned, nobody there matters.

Even amonst the rich clients, the malpractice incidence rate in the US is between 2-3 times that of the rest of the civilised world.

Worse, doctors struck off in one State for malpractice can simply move to another and get a fresh license. It happens.

The system is really bad.

Well, it lets some people have long cooldowns make the rest of their ecosystem suckers.

Of course, this *also* means the people with high cooldowns get to be vulnerable to security problems longer because they will be applying cooldown to security fixes...

But yes, some sort of actual curation would be the best mitigation, particularly to allow trustworthy critical security updates through quickly instead of those getting caught in the cooldown.

Anything that someone with an IQ over 60 can unambiguously figure out the meaning of is a word.

No. There has to be knowledge that they were likely participating in a criminal act. They could be charged with some sort of negligence but even that would be very tough unless it shows they skipped some very simple and obvious due diligence.

Maybe I should make this simpler for the hard of thinking.

Smoking impacts your chances of getting lung cancer. It is not a 100% guarantee, but it's pretty damn high. It is called an impact by anyone with anything close to an intellect that actually functions.

Having a vaccine impacts your chances of getting a disease. It's not a magic forcefield. It increases the payload needed to overwhelm the initial immune response, and it increases the severity of the infection needed to be anything more than a brief annoyance, but it isn't Harry Potter. And some would probably whinge about magic fields if it were. In many cases, the impact is a 90-95% level of protection, but we call it an impact.

God, the level of brain-dead morons here is so depressing.

If X alters Y, then yes X impacts Y. That's, like, basic terminology.

I do not specify magnitudes anywhere. If you saw them, please see your local pdoc as you're hallucinating.

Do you have problems with English?

Physics has used indirect testing for many years, and I don't think anyone expected string theory to be any different.

There are research papers that detail specific properties that must be present in any string theory-based model of gravity, for example. If we find, in our efforts to study quantum gravity, that those properties can't hold, then string theory cannot be correct. Not just a specific string theory, ANY string theory at all.

Any string theory that requires a supersymmetry that is reachable by the LHC once it gets updated will be falsified within a very short space of time. If we persist in not seeing supersymmetry after this further round of updates (and we've already had several to improve luminosity), then none of the string theories involved can be correct. They have to be false.

None of these allowing string theory would prove string theory "true", but if any are false then string theory cannot be true. If ALL of them permit string theory, then whether or not string theory describes anything real, the maths that has been done must nonetheless describe real things.

You are correct, AI (which is basically a neural network, and thus really just a glorified classifier) is superbly good at classification and if you want to classify what a condition is and how it connects to other conditions, then classifiers are by far the fastest and most reliable way to do this. You've said as much yourself, and I absolutely agree with you on every detail of what you've said about AI.

A lot of my private research into AI is to push it to the absolute limits and see where it fails. It fails in some fascinating ways, too. So, yeah, I also agree with your conclusion. It is really good in some areas and completely bad/potentially damaging in others. My personal efforts are centred around trying to parameterise exactly where that line is, but ultimately I think we're both absolutely agreed there is a line and we need to know where it is.

Providers have fatigue because they're overworked - in terms of caseload, in terms of cognitive effort per case that's needed, and in terms of how long their shifts end up being. You're right that AI could have reduced the caseload and cognitive effort, but you're right in what you say about the medical services needing more staff and shorter hours per staff member, and that it's an entirely legal failure cascade.

It's not clear to me how to fix the law (analysis suggests politician skulls are made of some sort of dwarf star alloy that seems to occupy most of the head region). I've generaly filed politics under Social Quantum Mechanics (you can either see the solution or create policy, but never both at the same time).

Please, do "educamate" me. It's the best you're gonna do, given that I probaly understand medicine, biology, and indeed statistics to a far higher level to some snotty-nosed brat whose UID runs into 7 digits.

What you eat and drink, what you do, how you stand, how much you exercise, who you hang out with - you're seriously telling me these don't have an impact on health? Whew, you've got a LOT of learning to do. I didn't know anyone was still that naive, post the 18th century.

Your physical and mental health, past around 50, is directly dependent on how you treated your body up to that point. Anyone who says otherwise is either an AI or a nematode cos there's no way anyone with more than 6 functional neurons can imagine otherwise.

Altman wants some public ownership, but not 50% which, presuming it would be a voting stake, would actually potentially matter for decision making. It's not a majority but if enough private market shareholders side with the public ownership, then it matters.

Instead, he wants enough for the public to have a stake specifically in the "approved" AI companies so that the companies are unambiguously "too big to fail". A chance to hold hostage a big enough chunk of wealth so that the government is stuck doing whatever it can to protect and ensure the selected companies, whether it be in the face of a souring market or upstart companies that didn't have the good fortune of being selected by the company. Meanwhile, the actual governance and decision making remain firmly status quo. Including decisions about how much to send back to "investors" and how much to "reinvest" (including setting their own compensation). They may even structure it so they can classify public ownership differently from private market, and reward investors in each class differently.

Just another ambition to privatize the gains and socialize the losses.