I thought federal vehicles didn't have license plates. They're invisible to flock.

From a business sense it is somewhat unstable.

For example if any investments were made WRT the earlier tarrifs, I bet they don't look so hot now.

Or maybe you invested in a large off shore wind project, how did the stability of the US turn out?

And for more balanced take (Trump is more recent, and extreme, but not the only problem) congress as a whole is unwilling to work together and pass laws so we end up with executive orders and whiplash on policy.

For an investment that will take years to complete and pay off the US is becoming risky in some areas. The risk is due to the instability of policy and law.

Exactly this. Simple fact, we have no idea whatsoever how to hard wire the 3 laws into an AI and neither did he.

He wasn't writing an engineering document, he was having fun playing with sometimes subtle logic and unintended consequences.

We can't even get them to reliably follow explicit instructions. But they will accurately report that they violated one of their instructions and offer a hollow apology for it when called out.

We apparently can't get it to understand that you can't just make up shit in a legal brief.

The danger isn't a robot whose eyes turn red as it chants kill the humans. The danger is a robot told to buy an ice cream from the truck shoving kids under a bus because they're impeding it's mission.

Before you can have the three laws, we must be able to hard-wire instructions so it can't ignore them, then we have to get it to understand what harm is and everything that causes it to humans.

Ideally yes.

But not necessary within a product version. Mayve this will force them to make sure the realease version really is release worthy.

TFA: "If you want to ban profiting from the failure of clinical trials, you would start with the stock market, where the financial incentive for this type of profit is orders of magnitude larger," said Kalshi spokesman Jack Such, pointing to stock market short sellers who have profited from clinical trial failures. "While Kalshi and the stock market are the same in this regard, they do differ in one important way: the stock market doesn't give any valuable information to researchers," Such said.

This is either ignorant and/or maliciously deceptive for the simple fact that there are rules against insider trading. Investors in pharmaceutical companies are not (or at least, should not be) privy to modifying the conduct of a trial in order to secure or deny approval. There is no similar oversight for these betting markets. Sure, they might say that your wager could be disqualified if it comes out that you interfered in the outcome, but that is little comfort for the trial participants and the drug sponsors, who can't just hop into a time machine and run it back.

And that's why there are so many regulations surrounding the conduct of clinical trials. People might argue that there is corruption and untoward influence already--that FDA approvals (especially under the current administration) are not necessarily based purely on scientific and medical legitimacy. But that's a very strange argument to put forth in defense of enabling MORE interference.

While I'm at it, let's also just shut down the absurd idea that betting markets somehow facilitate better information sharing about novel treatments. The point of these trials is to gather the evidence in an unbiased, objective, scientific way. Betting on them is not going to gather you any more meaningful evidence than what the trial designers have specified in the study protocol. The idea that "the market is efficient" is not in any meaningful sense a scientific approach to deciding whether an investigational product actually works. If that were the case, the FDA would be basing approvals off stock prices.

Honestly, who do these assholes think they're fooling? The only reason why they want to do this is because the house takes their cut, win or lose.

We can debate ad nauseam about the appropriateness of Asimov's laws, their historical context, how he as a SF writer applied them in his work, whether or not he was "right," etc. But the essential problem remains: the current framework that we are using to develop these technologies are inadequate for the purpose of ensuring safety.

Now, some people would argue otherwise--that, to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs. Every technology has the potential for misuse. Nothing can ever be 100% safe. And I don't dispute this, but that is also not the point, because, again, the central question of safety has to do with designing systems that will not destroy us. We're not talking about individual adverse impacts--which, mind you, we should strive to avoid as well--but the kind of technology that has the potential for global impact. Not enough effort has been made to safeguard against this contingency.

And we also have people who would say that such worries are needlessly alarmist, and assert that current systems are nowhere near that level of capability. That may be true. But that kind of thinking is much like climate change denialism in that it is rooted in a failure to anticipate and plan. Scientists warned us about climate change over 50 years ago and nothing was done; the evidence continues to mount and there still are people who have a financial and political motive to deny it. And for similar motives, there are people who insist on moving forward incautiously, with no regard for safety or ethics or consequences, because it gives them power and money.

I'm less interested in the specifics about whether Asimov's laws are appropriate or sufficient or correctly ordered, than I am about what we actually need to do as a race to prevent disasters. Let the historical record show that have been profoundly cavalier--we literally discovered planet-destroying science (nuclear fission) and then treated it like a toy. I don't think it is unreasonable to express doubts about our ability to have learned our lesson.

I'd even argue that for some uses the (more) consistent behavior of not having models update could be a benefit.

They're claiming 10x Cerebras (a 25kw system) performance.

100x performance per watt.

Even if they're overestimating / best casing the situation there is value to be had here.

The current frontier models have use. This could be made for one and depending on hardware cost be useful for a year and replaced (Nvidia/AMD hardware are advancing fast enough to be obsolete pretty quick too). I can see a business built around a product based on an open weight model using these in servers.

This is for end user/cloud provider products. And if these can be developed fast enough and not cost too much, there's likely a market.

The problem is that they have to appear to be doning something but catching criminals is a lot like work, so they sometimes play "pin the crime on the donkey", ANY donkey. That's where general searches become a problem. A crime happened around X, you were near X, go to jail! QED.

Long term, perhaps. But I do understand that before I start making a place to display my Olympic gold medal in swimming, I should first be able to traverse the kiddie pool without needing the lifeguard.

It might be a good idea to practice on Antarctica first, then think about how we get to Mars.

We don't even have a permanent colony on Antarctica, just scientific expeditions manned part-time.

To be a multi-planet species, we would need at least one permanent colony on a second planet (Mars, presumably).

Mars is a LOT harder than Antarctica.

I would say the non-litterer is preferable to the person who even litters on the moon.

It's the same reasons that CEOs who wreck multiple companies one after the other seem top find a golden parachute and a new job waiting for them.

Just wait until they get that massive ticket for littering...

That assumes you have a phone. Most of the time I'm in the store is because my phone is lost or broken.