In terms of pushing a bit more each time... yeah, they probably will not call an emergency, but ICE and troops hanging around poling stations and selectively harassing people? That is plausible.. as is siezing ballots and subjecting them to mr pillow style recounts.

Every time they push just a bit more to see what they can get away with. Conservatives and libertarians have been wanting to do away with that pesky democracy and its anti-god communist implications since the evangelical takeover in the reagan years. So yeah... people have been warning for decades, but we keep getting closer.

The real take-away for all of this is that AIs have no concept of cheating nor of right and wrong. They don't reliably honor even explicit instructions to not do something.

Give them agency and there will be havoc. When you tell an AI with agency to do something, mentally add the phrase "at all costs" to the end because the agent will. Still wanna try it?

But please don't ask it to bring world peace, because grave yards are quite peaceful.

The two articles were probably written by two different ghost-writers.

AI isn't actually smart. It's an at best average intelligence thing with an insane amount of available knowledge. Like the village idiot with eidetic memory.

As soon as you do any work with AI that's not available as a ready-to-apply solution from its training data, you begin to notice how much you need to correct it, keep it on track, remind it of basic constraints you already mentioned five times, etc. - it's performing at a level I'd accept from an intern, but not from a co-worker.

What it does have is data. Tons of data. Any question that would take you and me half an hour on Google and Wikipedia to answer it can answer in 10 seconds. That's a great tool. It is not intelligence, however.

How is this "news that matter"?

Bill Gates is an old man who has zero AI credentials and has long ago become irrelevant. Not to mention his previous predictions of future developments are not exactly brilliant.

lol

Welcome to the 21st century, you might have to catch up on a few things. Start with Mozilla Media Engine and AVFoundation / WebKit Media Stack.

Your website sends me an H.264 stream (or whatever you decided you'll use). It doesn't need to know shit about my graphics hardware.

Complete bullshit. Even for fullscreen video, the website doesn't need to know my screen size. It should tell the browser "here are the resolutions I can offer you" and the browser picks one of those. All the website needs to know is if I prefer 1080p or 4K. And I might pick 1080p even if my screen is 4K because, say, the hotel wifi is slow.

Complete bullshit. None of these things break if I don't tell you my OS. I've got extensions in this browser that can fake my agent string and nothing breaks. Fonts? Are you kidding me? Be more specific, what exactly do you mean by that?

And there's no reason it needs to. What legit use case requires a website to know whether my GPU is an NVidia, AMD, Intel or whatever chip? A shitload of the capabilities are only needed for 3D scenes (like max texture size), which is 0.1% of the websites I visit - they can ask and I can whitelist just them. Why does it need my refresh rate?

Again: All of these things have a legit use case, sure. Often exactly one. That is rarely if ever used. There's absolutely no reason that EVERY WEBSITE can query information that only one website in a thousand actually needs.

You don't tell the baker, florist and car dealer your shoe size just because the shoe shop needs it to serve you, right?

Because I want to be irrelevant to the fucking ad industry. I don't want them to track me, profile me and try every trick in the book to manipulate me into buying shit I don't need.

Sure, the same way that putting a finger into another man's ass has a legit use case (prostate examination) - but that doesn't mean I want every man to do that to me all the time.

The point is that tech companies are exploiting the legit use cases by abusing them when you're not in that use case. Basically, they think they can finger up your ass whenever they want, because once a few years ago you consented to a doctor to give you an exam and maybe you will do that again in the future.

I don't mind it being capable of. I mind it doing all kinds of shit without telling me and without giving me a choice. For example, I absolutely do not want websites to access my microphone. Or even know that I have one. For the once-a-year case where I might actually use that, I can enable it.

The problem is the same problem that the cybersecurity field has been fighting for 40 years: Permit All being the default.

It has happened under both.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

It doesn't NEED to know any of these things. My browser knows the window (not screen) size and if your CSS is well-formed, it'll manage or maybe your page looks shit if you build it shit. It needs to know my OS only if I want a download link, not on every page I ever visit. It doesn't need graphics capabilities unless it wants to bypass the browser rendering engine, in which case it should ask for permission or fuck off.

The thing is that we give up too easily and the major browser manufacturers (one of which is an ad company themselves) are complicit.

I want "fuck the ad industry" mode, where the browser generates random but plausible values for every non-essential information a website requests. Different ones every 5 minutes.

Currently, there are no known functional cures for AD. There exist a number of treatments (monoclonal antibodies) for which there is supporting evidence for slowing cognitive decline and delaying the progression of functional disability, but the effect size is generally modest. To be fair, some people seem to be stronger responders than others; however, these amyloid-targeting treatments also have a risk of ARIA (amyloid-related imaging abnormalities), which are associated with microvascular hemorrhages (bleeding of the small blood vessels in the brain).

A subgroup of the general population is predisposed to AD because of a genetic mutation they carry (ApoE4). Each of us carries two copies of this gene, and we know that people who have one mutant copy (heterozygous) have a modestly increased risk of developing AD, and those with two mutant copies (homozygous) have a significantly higher risk. Not only is the lifetime risk increased, the typical age at onset is decades earlier; homozygotes may begin showing MCI (mild cognitive impairment) as early as in their 40s, and we call this "early-onset AD."

So, to answer your question, you are correct: there isn't really anything someone can do to stop or reverse the condition, but with early detection and treatment, they might be able to improve their quality of life and reduce the burden on caregivers and long-term financial cost of care. How such a person copes with a diagnosis is a psychological question. Some will spiral into depression and despair. Others might plan for the future in ways they might not have done otherwise, and find focus and purpose during the time they have. And it is for this latter group that the availability of such a test might be particularly helpful.

That said, having a validated and (relatively) noninvasive biomarker for AD pathology is a huge game-changer for AD research and drug development. One of the biggest challenges for targeting AD is accurately identifying the patient population. In the past, it was not always clear whether trial participants--many of whom were elderly (i.e. 75+)--actually had AD, or some other dementia, since the gold standard was to perform an autopsy. Because of this, clinical trials often suffered from a lack of statistical power due to a proportion of participants not actually having the disease that drug was intended to treat.

Since then, we devised various imaging modalities (e.g., PET) to use in conjunction with investigator assessment to improve population quality, but the more measures we have, the better the trial data gets, and the better researchers can identify targets for drug candidates. But we are still a long way off from figuring out how to prevent and/or reverse AD. One reason is that we believe that by the time patients exhibit symptoms of cognitive impairment, it's already too late--there is already extensive damage. So if there is a biomarker that can reliably detect subclinical AD pathology, this also has positive implications for designing clinical trials that aim to prevent AD disease in susceptible people, much like a vaccine for infectious disease or cancer.

It's a big dream, like being able to prevent or cure all forms of cancer. But I would like to imagine it is possible. These diseases take such a tremendous toll--on patients, on their caregivers, on the healthcare system, on society--and I hope there will come a day when they can be prevented as easily as going to your local pharmacy and getting a shot.

The descendants of Ogg have renewed the ongoing lawsuit against the descendants of Zogg alleging that Ogg dropped a rock on Zoggs foot in a cave one fine day and it was really ouchie! Anthropologists are working around the clock trying to restore the cave paintings documenting the original complaint made to the tribal chief in 30,001 BCE.

This is essentially a high-stakes gamble. The payout is potentially millions, so they just try whatever. And I bet if it all turns against them and they're forced to pay legal costs etc. they'll just file for bancruptsy.