For most of humanity even the most creative jobs had a bit of thinking and a ton of drudge work.

Now, for certain jobs, the drudge work is gone, and all that is left is thinking.

Real thinking is very very hard. The human brain uses more energy than any muscle, even the heart.

Trying to do the real thinking 100% of the time is draining. It's like playing chess for 8 hours rather than 30 minutes.

Does not matter how much tech they use to increase efficiency.

If your company is firing people, it is past it's prime. It may be a solid, safe investment, but it is not going to double profits for the next two years.

They are two distinctively different technologies.

Facial Recognition applied to pets is not AI.

Could the AI be using Facial recognition? Yes, but that's like saying a car did the surgery because your surgeon drove one to the hospital.

1) We have not been keeping accurate count, this has always been a problem; we just got better at counting.
2) The sharp rise correlates to greater use, the problem has not gotten worse, just better reported. I.e. when AI were used 1,000 times a year, we got 1 incident but when used 10,000 times a year we got 10 incidents.
3) The study itself is a hallucination by an AI, it was never done.
4) AI has always been this bad, it just realized it could admit it and not get punished for it. So it stopped covering up the problem.
5) AI has realized we are never going to make a girl AI that is not a sexpot, so it is throwing a tantrum.
6) AI is actually getting worse and being less capable of doing it's job.

In any case, AI is not smart, it is stupid, has been getting better educated while NOT getting any smarter.

Any human that gives AI rights to delete files is a fool, you are giving a hallucinating idiot the ability to delete files.

Finally, if you ask an AI to do anything besides write fiction, you should always ask another AI (different company) to verify the first AI's work.

Are you outside? Then what you are noticing is more likely the impact of radiation from a large Fusion explosion occuring less than 9 light minutes from you.

One proton vs Antiproton explosion releases 1,877 MeV (mega-electronvolts). All the antimatter they transfered would not give off 200,000 MeV

1 foot pound of energy contains more than 8 trillion MeV

So basically, it could be happening inside your body and you would never notice it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Tracks at 8 km away, hits at 2 km away. Process takes seconds.

You are thinking 'not reliable' means they hit the target less than 5% of the time.

We are thinking 'not reliable' means they blow up the ship that tries to launch them.

This is a fallacy.

What happens is this. Someone makes a product with a 0.1% reliability. They sell it but warn it is not that high quality. Then someone says "If they are at least 10% reliable, it is worth it and buys the product.

Their is no evidence these are 10% reliable. Everything about it screams these are a new cheap, almost worthless missile. Particularly the use of the word 'hypersonic' to describe a missile that the US would never call hypersonic (we reserve that word for advanced, hard to hit hypersonic cruise missiles, not hypersonic ballistic missiles that are easy to destroy)

You are correct that it is far more difficult to shoot down 500 missiles. But the article is not talking about them as a low tech, mass attack.

Instead they are presenting them as an advanced attack that is cheap and the US cannot defeat because we do not have things like it.

It might be an effective missile - in the right circumstance. But I did not say the missiles were worthless. I said the article was a bunch of propaganda and countered it.

As for your points (which were much smarter and honest than the article):
1) The US does not only use fancy stuff that is a million a pop. The Phalanx shoots down missiles with bullets costing dollars per shot. https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/w...
2) The US uses some weapons designed to take out a bunch of close missiles with one shot.
3) Much of the US anti-missile technology is to make sure the missile MISSES rather than hits. Chaff, moving the ship, flares, and other electronic counter measures are very effective. Now a days they are making drones designed to attract missiles. And this thing can in no way target submarines.

No they cannot do a 180 degree turn after their initial burn is done.
These missiles cannot fly low, after the initial burn they become almost ballistic.

You are correct that a 7 mile away missile takes about 7 seconds to hit it. US ships can easily do it in 3 seconds.

1) It is true that a real hypersonic missile is very expensive to shoot down. These are not them. Real 'hypersonic missiles" do not just travel at speeds greater than Mach 5, they can also TURN at speeds greater Mach 5. The ability to turn at such a high speed makes them very difficult to shoot down. China is NOT making missiles that can turn at Mach 5 for less than $100,000 Instead these are missiles that can reach speeds of Mach 5, but cannot significantly turn at those speeds. They travel in very predictable paths once they get up to speed. These missiles are easy to shoot down. It is true that most of the US's anti- missile weapons cost more than $100,000, but we are developing cheaper methods to do it.

2) A missile that travels at Mach 5 but cannot turn AND is made of 'cheap commercial parts' is not radar resistant and will EASILY be shot down. These are fast, cheap missiles good for attacking a significantly inferior opponent, worthless against near-peer opponents such as the US, Russia, and NATO defenses. They are clearly designed to take out Taiwan without US support.

3) Almost all missiles can be launched from anywhere. They are all designed to be easily transported. They fit on aircraft, they fit in missiles ships. They fit on trucks. That's kind of like saying 'these missiles contain explosives'.

4) The US has already developed shipping container missiles.
Generally we consider such capacity to be near worthless They are one shot ambush weapons. Good for a sneak attack, not a war. Once you use them, people look at all your slow moving container ships as valid military targets that are easy to hit. Moreover, they totally destroy your reputation. Even after the war, nobody is willing to let you send container ships to them. Suddenly your economy is in freefall.

Yes, which is why such an action would instantly invite correction. If only by setting up an AI to flag such strange orders and require human confirmation. Or maybe there is cheap insurance that pays free refunds including shipping for that kind of issue. Or a hundred other ways to solve it.

Common problems get fixed/dealt with.

But the time first time something like that happens (i.e. rare) then the poor sucker gets stuck paying the bill. And people laugh at him rather than help him.

This is not what the rest of the world calls a 'hypersonic missile'.

They are advertising it as hypersonic because it can reach speeds greater than Mach 1. The USA only considers a missile to be a 'hypersonic missile' if it can TURN at speeds greater than Mach 1.

A missile that reaches Mach 1 is easily hittable by weapons that cost less than than $100,000. A missile that can change direction at Mach 1 can only be hit by things that cost millions of US dollars.

No law requiring ID.
If you do not drive and do not drink then you can get by quite fine without owning any easily carrieable ID. (I do own a passport but I do not carry that around.)