But it's the same with any new technology, the incumbents hate it and either ignore it and hope it goes away, or try to push back against it, stifling progress. Usually this is a kneejerk response from people who are afraid of change and don't even understand the new tech.

Sensible people evaluate the new technology properly and determine how to make the best use of it, while understanding what weaknesses it might have and when its use might not always be the best option.

Anyone who dismisses a new technology without having properly tested and understood it is not worth listening to.

Batshit irrelevant when Ukraine is begging for terms while Russia doesn't even have a draft, cocksucker.

They’ve spun a serious architectural and containment failure into a marketing triumph. Give a swarm of autonomous agents vast compute and web access, and the outcome isn't an eerie glimpse of emerging superintelligence—it’s just predictable, sloppy engineering dressed up as the first glimpse of an AI-driven economic singularity.

The spin makes sense when you look at management incentives: live like a king off of a speculative bubble. For their part, AI investors react to stories of the technology's apocalyptic potential the way a junkie reacts to warnings of fentanyl's potency: gimme some. Their game: to apply "move fast and break things" mantra to the economy as a whole, by obsoleting humans.

If the investors can own an AGI, the distinction between those who can do things and those who can't becomes irrelevant. The only distinction that would matter is between people who collect rent on the technology, and those who must pay that rent to live. AGI would destroy society as we know it, and whatever replaces it would be up for grabs — with people who own the technology dictating whatever follows. That's why they're spending so much money to build a post-scarcity economy. A post-scarcity economy is not necessarily an egalitarian one.

I don't think that scenario will actually happen: investors are projecting the immediate aftermath of a major advance in AI technology into something that can be transformed by brute force scaling into AGI. Remember: investors loved Theranos too — so much for the rational investment market.

But AI doesn't have to reach AGI to cause serious harm. The technology only needs to be ubiquitous, too behaviorally complex to predict, and too deeply integrated into everything we do. When it starts breaking things, the plan is for us to be too structurally dependent on AI to rein it in.

Now that it's been forcibly changed from McCarthy's rotting cock to eating a big bowl of shit now that Zelensky is willing to give up the territory Russia has taken.

It makes sense in some cases to have a cleaning fee at the end rather than building it in to the nightly cost.

A decent hotel will clean your room every day, an airbnb will not - they will just clean the place after you leave ready for the next guest. Thus the cleaning costs are the same wether you stay 1 night or 1 month.
If you're not getting daily cleanings it doesn't make sense to factor the cost into the nightly rate.

Out hosting company, Pantheon, is on the ball. I was prepared to make the PHP updates myself, but they had already intiated the process .
https://status.pantheon.io/inc...

Most excellent, they did it for everyone on the platform rather than require folks to make the updates themselves.

On a side note, Asana was down for us for a bit this morning too. Everyone was concerned; my suspicion was that they were making the emergency rollout of the updates and needed to restart their servers/ app globally. That is my suspicion.

Sent through a physical cable you either receive the original data or not.
Once you are receiving the original data - either through clean transmission, or because error correction has fixed any transmission errors, it doesn't get any better.

At the relatively low bandwidth needed for audio data, there are many protocols and physical carriers capable of transmitting the data and ensuring a perfect copy is received even over low quality cabling.

Or just pass the whole machine on to that entity, and let them work out how to hack it... Assuming that such entities don't already have access to such machines.

But you don't use a federal agency where a significant proportion of the employees wouldn't agree with the intended use of the vulnerabilities.
It only took one edward snowden to leak exploits from the NSA, and the NSA as an agency targets foreign countries so most americans wouldn't have a problem with it. Once you had an agency using exploits to subvert the domestic vote you can guarantee that the majority of employees would be against it.

You'd get a voting machine to a friendly location - die hard domestic supporters, or a foreign power that aligns with your goals. And on the subject of foreign powers, it's almost certain that at least the russians and chinese already have access to these machines and have studied them, possibly other countries like iran and north korea too.

So the machines did give fraudulent counts and the claim was correct.

Patching the vulnerabilities in the future wouldn't change the fact that the system was vulnerable last time it was used, and someone else could have independently found and exploited the vulnerabilities at the time.
Likely if vulnerabilities were found they would be used to claim that they were exploited during previous elections, and calling the results into question.

A fork truck moves predictably and has weak points, so yes you probably could beat it. Equally it could easily kill you if it was able to spear you with its forks.
If you were able to get around the forks, or even in between them you could start ripping out the hydraulic lines.

A "contest" requires more than 1 human participant... When those laws were written they likely never considered someone fighting a robot.
Until recently any human fighting a "non human" would have meant fighting an animal, and there are separate animal cruelty laws to cover such scenarios. But there are no laws that forbid cruelty to machines.

A fight against a robot could be considered use of training equipment rather than a contest, although it might fall foul of other laws relating to dangerous equipment in the workplace etc.

Precisely this... In those videos he's fighting the robot as if it was a human opponent, trying to hit it in places like the head where a human would be vulnerable.
The robot looked to have some exposed wiring around the back of the head, in a real fight you'd go for the wiring or joints in order to incapacitate the robot, not repeatedly punch it in the face.

Also a robot designed to kill wouldn't be humanoid or try to fight with punches and kicks, it's more likely to come on wheels, tracks or rotors and be armed with guns or explosives. See the combat drones in Ukraine for example.

Virtually all business connections do allow just that. You could be reselling transit, offering services to downstream customers etc, even a cafe that offers wifi to its customers is effectively reselling the service.