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?

The key word is "it." There is no singular "it". Flattening the category of AI-enabled software to a singular "it" implies that there is a flat truth that applies to that entire category.

The AI-enabled software "it" that is running a store into the ground doesn't present a meaningful threat to anyone.
the AI-enabled software "it" that is being used by black-hats to find security vulnerabilities does.

AI is a tool. Think of it not unlike nuclear. Nuclear power plants aren't an existential threat, despite the harm a plant accident can cause. Nuclear weapons are.

What's clear is that trying to simplify complex topics into bite-sized "common-sense" topics doesn't work in 2026.

No, I don't think the tech-bros are being honest. But I don't think it matters anymore. Someone is going to weaponize this technology and a lot of people are going to suffer because of it. Not Skynet scenarios but rather Cyberpunk / Blade Runner scenarios. There's a real danger to the health and well-being of a large portion of the human race, for sure. The tech-bros aren't going to let that stop them from getting richer, for sure.

What we - the 99% - can or should do about that, I don't know.

Fair enough, and the feedback is always appreciated. All I can offer in return is to bold what I wrote...
"On the gripping hand, there could be individual-level cases that do have society-wide impact."

Thank you.

Wow. Brutal.

I was very careful in my choice of words. This isn't about understanding. It's about feeling, which is why I used the word "feel" instead of "think" repeatedly.

I understand the role of the US Supreme Court and its equivalents in other countries. It's just that I'm uncomfortable with it being triggered in this case. I'm sure that doing so will be technically correct if allowed, but I don't feel that this case is a witchhunt... it's a witch. Yes, that means I've convicted Bankman-Fried in my heart. Granted. The courts to date have done the same, so it's not like the conclusion of guilt is absurd.

I have mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand, someone who believes they have been wrongfully convicted of any crime should be allowed to have that conviction reviewed by every level of justice that exists.

On the other hand, I feel something like a supreme court should spend its time on law matters that impact a large portion of their country. Issues and topics that refer to policy and fundamental law. Spending their time examining a single person's case feels like a use of their time that is unjust to the rest of the country.

On the gripping hand, there could be individual-level cases that do have society-wide impact.

In the end, this is only happening because there's a lot of money involved, which also feels unjust. A random citizen wrongfully convicted of theft or fraud could never get their case before the US Supreme Court, so why should this guy? I hate it all.

One model going down is happenstance, two — a coincidence, the third one — it's enemy action.

— James Bond

I have no mod points, so here, have an "I agree". On all points. It's one thing to say "I didn't like it" or - even better - "I didn't like it because...", but dropping random "it sucked" - or worse - "it really sucked" is... lame.

I found it entertaining, which is what my primary criterion is for entertainment.

There's (probably) a fundamental difference, even if you want to equate AI recombination and human inspiration.

Human artists - in theory - used legal means to hear what inspired them. Could be listening to it on broadcast radio, where the right to hear it was arranged through ads. Could be listening to it on a mix tape from a friend, which many countries have laws for. It's not assumed, suspected, or proven that the musician who cites Sting or Ozzy stole the albums they're inspired by.

The tech bros pretty openly did exactly that.

If they ever could've, they would've. That should tell you they couldn't, and the above is the reason, I think.

Almost without fail the people doing that are working within legal rights, doing parody. Comedians or sketch comics. There has been a legal carve-out for those types of activities. Even Elvis impersonators have to be very careful; their actual performance doesn't invoke legal liability but any merch or an Elvis-themed Vegas wedding facility does trigger royalties. It's very different to have a comedian performing "wouldn't it be funny if Famous Person was in this situation" than "we're making more Die Hard movies and Bruce Willis can go ahead and stop us from using his likeness if he can... oh... right... he can't... so eat a bag of dicks."

It's August 24th right now. "February or March" is around 5 months away. Which is not a year.

Due to weather, yes, plausibly. This is literally rocket science and weather can absolutely merit a scrub.

Again, this is rocket science. The rocket scientists seem to think that visible light is somehow helpful to the landing's odds of success. It passes the sniff test to me; voluntarily sacrificing such a useful spectrum seems unwise to me.

Indeed, yes. Do you have some grounds for your doubt?

That's interesting but drum machines and synths are still instruments in a human's hands. Think about some of Pink Floyd's early works where they used tape loops and whatnot. The automation became an instrument to incredibly ground-breaking effect. Think about the entirety of Depeche Mode's discography. Huge amounts of artificial instruments but the arrangement can be very good, and they have made new arrangements throughout the decades when touring, just like purely accoustic bands. Then there's Michael Cretu's band, Enigma, which is literally a portable sound studio, yet his stuff is quite influential and complex.

The difference in my mind is that AI isn't any of those things. It's recombinant, not creative. It will never invent... until true AI in the sense we used to use the term exists.

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

And DARPA has a whole program for it:

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

Task Manager is for application performance. It tells you what resources a given task/PID/application is using. It tells you what memory usage is, CPU usage is, GPU usage is, per application. Extending this to NPU hardware is very much the purview of Task Manager.

While that is true, it is also not what this is about.

They're expanding Task Manager to give you insight and monitoring capabilities for when AI is running. They're not injecting AI into Task Manager itself.

A related phenomenon is, Holocaust survivors live(d) longer. There is no good explanation and repeating the experiment is, thankfully, quite impossible...

Simply the Forbes link was enough to confirm this point

Nope. One link is not enough — from the very beginning I asked, that each citation consist of two links: one to the prediction being made, the other — to confirmation/discussion of it coming true. Another rule was, the two links must be at least 5 years apart.

The purpose is easy to understand. A person can privately record 20 predictions of, say, an average temperature somewhere changing from -10 to +9 degrees. Five years later one of them will have made a precise match, and Forbes will write about him. If you didn't know about his 19 other predictions, you'll be impressed... This is why I insist on the prediction to have been published — prominently — ahead of time.

you purposely ignore the arguments

Because I was not asking for arguments — I was asking for citations...