Rename the Gulf or a Great Lake? Sure. Whatever. Renaming this whole branch of computer science? No. Not going to happen. Dude is delusional to even try.

That's not the issue - insurance companies have no problem giving insurance to humans which have "individual learning capabilities."

The problem is that while insurance companies can extract compensation from humans - essentially they can coerce the humans to work "for them" to pay them back - they can't get compensation from the AI, and there isn't a good framework to get compensation from the AI developers.

The issue isn't that the AI learns - the issue is that our legal framework doesn't have a good way to get "compensation" from errant AI - because the AI itself doesn't care if it gets shut off. You can't hold the AI itself "liable" like you can a person. So until we change the liability framework, we'll be stuck. This isn't a technical problem, so much as a social one.

Part of self-driving cars being safer than people is that they don't drive "very close together" - they follow at the appropriate following distance and speed for the lines of sight. This alone accounts for a large portion of the improved safety performance of these systems.

Autonomous cars are actually very good at the driving task. Where they fail is when they encounter situations that are "abnormal" and I think the industry has a problem here; state of the art is either to train specifically for every situation (impossible in the limit) or to kick the decision to a human in a support center somewhere. Things like emergency vehicles, school buses, farmer markets, construction zones, etc.

The industry needs to figure out how to get their systems to "get confused, then reason their way out of a situation."

This long tail is where humans still do better - when there is some "new" scenario, like a particular combination of debris in the roadway, on a Tuesday, with gawkers, during a fireworks display. You will never be able to "train" your way out of that - you need the correct structural formulation for the problem space.

The big takeaway I have from their study is that their study areas - major metropolitan centers - is that cities have way, way worse than average incidents per vehicle mile travelled.

I mean the national average is only something like 1.25 fatalities per 100M miles, injuries only 75 per 100M miles, and "all" incidents like 140 per 100M miles. But the benchmark numbers on the linked websites range from 200 to almost 700 injury incidents per 100M miles in those cities.

Like, if you are using the average number, you can't even reduce the number of incidents by 841 over 271 million miles, because the expected value is only 203. You have to have a rate of at least 300 injury-incidents per 100 million miles to reduce by 841 at over 271 million miles. So really, their results are driven by San Francisco, Austin, and Atlanta.

Their confidence bands are also pretty low; for example they quote 2 serious or greater injuries in San Fran, which on 82 million miles there is a rate of "0.02 per million miles". But 2 injuries is not really enough to make a statistical inference.

Least of all because all the miles are with different versions of their software - you can't make any predictive claim.

Statistics never lie, but you can make them say whatever you want...

Started my CS classes in 2000. The intro professor literally stated the cliche, "look at the person on your left. Now look at the person on your right. One of you won't be here by the end of the semester."

And what does the language matter anyway when you can now type in pseudocode into Copilot and ask it to form perfect equivalent code in any language?

I am sure you know this and are just trying to shit on the editors, as one does on /.; but here, use this in case you didn't know: https://xcancel.com/_lyraaaa_/...

The problem is that China has subsidized these vehicles to produce them below cost. This is a familiar tactic with Chinese manufacturers they've used in multiple industries to capture market share, bankrupt competitors, dominate markets, and then set prices to whatever they want. China is a communist country that views these companies as extensions of their government, which is outright hostile and militaristic. This is an attempt to ruin the industrial base of all competing countries which could challenge their military domination.

They want us to be greedy and only think "cheap cars! We must have them!" Meanwhile, our own automakers would slowly wither and die. The next time we'd need to mobilize like we did in WW2, we wouldn't have the industrial capacity of Ford or GM to build tanks and jeeps. We and every other country would be at the mercy of the CCP.

The problem is that China has subsidized these vehicles to produce them below cost. This is a familiar tactic with Chinese manufacturers they've used in multiple industries to capture market share, bankrupt competitors, dominate markets, and then set prices to whatever they want. China is a communist country that views these companies as extensions of their government, which is outright hostile and militaristic. This is an attempt to ruin the industrial base of all competing countries which could challenge their military domination.

They want us to be greedy and only think "cheap cars! We must have them!" Meanwhile, our own automakers would slowly wither and die. The next time we'd need to mobilize like we did in WW2, we wouldn't have the industrial capacity of Ford or GM to build tanks and jeeps. We and every other country would be at the mercy of the CCP.

Sorry, no. Other countries don’t possess a monopoly on talent. We don’t hire basketball coaches from China because there’s plenty of fantastic coaches from America that are equally capable of doing the job. In fact, there’s a long line of fantastic American coaches who would love the opportunity to take that position and perform that work. It makes no sense to hire a Chinese coach for an American team when there’s plenty of Americans here who are ready, willing, and able to do that job. Your basketball program isn’t going to die because you think this one coach from China is the absolute best in the world and you can’t get him.

Kirk is a fictional character that never faces the real consequences of his actions.

OpenAI is a real company in the real world in which one company hacking another is considered a felony offense and normal people go to real life jail for breaking those laws.

I wrote that the amount wasn't enough to slow down H1b hiring. That presumes it's also not enough to stop it as well.

The point being that if the administration actually wants the fee to be effective at slowing down H1b hiring, they need to make it much higher.

No, if we're not going to eliminate the program, we should lean into the government money grab. Today, we give away these positions in a lottery. Instead, we should auction them off to the highest bidder. Let the free market run up the price of this limited good. Let companies compete for it.

The $103,265 fee is a slap on the wrist. It's not high enough to actually be effective at slowing down employers from using the program.

https://www.cs.wisc.edu/2025/0...

And DARPA has a whole program for it:

https://www.darpa.mil/research...