While true, Idi Amin, e.g., was not white.

OK. That puts them in the same basket as Flock.

What does it matter whether or not they're white? I've seen examples from Asia and Africa that were worse.

I'd put him as one of the top 3 or 4, or at least one of the top 10, because of the power of his position, not because he's intrinsically the worst.

Well, if all cars do the same thing, you have a good point. I haven't looked in the last decade, but the last time I did there were lots of alternatives. I admit many posts over the months have been saying that this isn't true any longer...or that this is why they only drive (some model) used car.

But it's still not as bad as Flock (et al.), which doesn't even ask for permission.

Is he really suggesting that we all go back to the days of running dumb terminals?

Yes, The whole AI industry is suggesting it as part of the whole "you don't own anything anymore".

Nvidia because they don't want you to own GPUs - they've been restricting how many 5000 series gaming GPUs they make so they can make more of their AI processors. In the meantime, why not subscribe to GeForce Now and their gaming subscription services. And with RAM prices causing everything to jump up in price, streaming gaming services are being promoted. Why do you think Microsoft is having to restrict usage?

Altman wanting you to not own a PC anymore is exactly the point. Get their little AI device and it replaces your phone as well.

They're scheming to basically not own a computer anymore.

But I believe that Lexis is only selling the data of those that have agreed to have their data sold, even if they didn't realize it.

It may not stop tracking, but it lets you do the search for something without losing your place.

Claiming that "Most psychology experiments are not replicated" is both true and irrelevant. Most psychology experiments are done to satisfy arbitrary rules. When I took a psych class, I had to sign up for, I think, one experiment per week. None of them were either replicated or significant.

There *are* psychology experiments that are replicated. Some survive replication, some don't. The ones that aren't replicated aren't important...and there are lots of experiments in other sciences that aren't replicated unless there's a good reason. Many are so expensive that replication is done only if it appears to be needed. (The experiment was done and it agrees with theory. OK.)

And what's the threshold for notability? It's entirely possible that someone is well known in a certain circle but that circle isn't in the public zeitgeist, but if you join that circle you would know of that person.

I mean, I can guess if you have a public persona then at a minimum that should be worthy of something - if your neighbor is like everyone else who keeps to themselves then yeah, they don't get a wikipedia page. But if you're a public performer and have done something in public you are notable for, then having that would be worthy of inclusion. If nothing more than just your public facing persona.

Like Xav's page would have his parents listed (both are public notable personas), and details on his music, but I would expect the rest of it to not be documented because that would likely be private information. But it would be a useful detail if someone were to ask "Is Xav related to Justin?".(It's a question worth asking, given Justin's rather public dates with Katy Perry)

Yeah, I fully expect that Trump - and especially his family members is profiting on these platforms by leveraging their inside knowledge about events for which the timing is under Trump's own control.

Kalshi hired Trump Jr. as a strategic advisor earlier this year.

We can all guess why.

It's starting to be if it's worse if a party (CCP) does it, or if the leader's family does it. After all, the top Chinese companies have a CCP member in an executive level position. The top US companies have a Trump family member doing the same thing.

Actually those two stances are NOT incompatible. I'm not sure they're both true, but they might well be.

Finding a code exploit is a task with an easily validated result. That's where AI is best.
Writing code that doesn't have exploits doesn't have a easy check. So AI is not as good there.

You could use a harness to check for exploits after you wrote the code, but that increases both time and cost, and isn't guaranteed to find all the exploits. (People and AIs think differently, and don't recognize all the same patterns.)

This will probably change. AIs have "jagged competence", but the areas that they are weak have been getting stronger. For now, however (and as I understand it) there are still many areas where humans are more competent than publicly available AIs.

It's quite plausible that sometime next year Yang's reported claims will be appropriate. OTOH, that would imply massive other changes, also. And it's also possible that the claims will still be exaggerated.

I was referring specifically to an AI agent interface, but that does drop my estimate of how long until it appears. Now I'd say it may appear within months.

Ignorance, really. The ads for Muse do stuff like asking it to help you shop for gifts and other things, as well as deal with customer service agents if you get wrongly billed.

So it's kind of obvious they gave up the password so the agent could peruse the account charges and then do stuff like challenge them on your behalf.

The way the ad makes it seem is that it happens automatically and takes a few minutes, instead of spending hours on the phone trying to deal with the charges.

So people are being pulled into it simply for the convenience factor.

Things like that will appear eventually. It's too early to expect them. And eventually it will be the user that has the read-only access...and it will never be used. But eventually may be a couple of decades from now (and it may also be a couple of years from now...there's a large variance in that prediction, but I'd be really surprised if it were less than a year from now or longer than a couple of decades).