I noticed that when Formerly-known-as-tweets are embedded on another web site, they put the 'X' logo in the upper right corner now.

scammers gonna scam.

In fact, the best thing to do is to use the gaps between cars to absorb speed differences so as to allow ALL traffic to flow more smoothly

I agree with you, and I find that this is easier to do in a manual because the acceleration is instantaneous. I have found that I don't have to accelerate as hard if the response is immediate, versus delayed. I don't have to brake as hard because I start slowing as soon as I back off the gas.

With most automatics, the off-pedal cruising speed is 20 to 25 mph, which means that driving any slower than that requires riding the brake. From behind, a slow, steadily moving automatic appears the same as one which is stopping, or stopped. So they create a situation in which drivers behind a steady 15mph automatic vehicle have a harder time estimating traffic speed - which leads to the inevitable traffic accordion.

Many years ago, when Motorola was in buyout talks with Google, they used Google docs extensively. One can only wonder if Google got a better deal because they were able to read Motorola's internal discussions. I don't know if they used Google docs for the discussions, but I do know there were quite a few people at the company who expressed no concern for the possibility that Google docs could leak proprietary information.

One of my vehicles has an automatic transmission, and the other, a manual. The car with the automatic transmission has about twice the horsepower of the manual, but drives as if it's twice as heavy.

What I've noticed is that when driving the manual in heavy traffic, I use the brakes much less than with the automatic; one pedal both brakes and accelerates. Because I can keep the engine in its power band when crawling along in traffic, I get instant acceleration when traffic speeds up again. But with the automatic, the "delay, downshift, overaccelerate" conniption fit of the automatic transmission often allows other drivers the space to cut in front of me.

So instead of teaching people to write concise, to-the-point emails, we instead let them ramble on and use AI to communicate what they really intended to say.

This doesn't solve the TLDR problem, it only makes it worse by encouraging people to waste time writing emails that others simply won't read.

They manage to find ways to be obviously incorrect, even if you don't know the answer.

real examples I hit:

Q: "On what coin does Abraham Lincoln appear"

A: "The coin Abraham Lincoln appears on is the US 50 dollar bill." (a bill is not a coin)

Q: "What is the rule in the game Monopoly when doubles are rolled three times in a row"

A: "[go to jail blah blah] if three doubles are rolled, like two 3s, two 5s and two 9s" (Monopoly uses 6 sided dice)

Q: "On the TV show Bluey, what is Bandit's wife's name"

A: "Bandit's wife is Bluey, and they have a loving relationship." (Bluey is his daughter, a small child.)

That's called Bitcoin.

In other words, information known to most graduates of the physical sciences, but somehow illegal to disseminate outside of the collegiate environment...

I find it rather curious that Britain has not only made certain knowledge illegal, but has managed to convince the press that merely knowing certain things can threaten their very safety.

Problem is, once they start using 'current' data, they'll be cannibalizing the output of other AIs, leading to a spiral of insanity.

If a model produces better answers when it is given more time to think, one can presume that it doesn't understand when it has actually found the answer to a problem, but is instead weighing incomplete options against the time remaining.

A truly thinking agent would recognize when it has the solution to a problem, and would be able to signal that it needed more time to complete the answer if it hasn't found the answer and has options yet unexplored. And it would also be able to understand if it had not reached a correct answer after trying all of its possible options. It seems that what passes for deep thinking here is nothing more than tuning time constraints so that the agent gets most of the answers correct, rather than actually building an agent which can recognize when it is right, when it is wrong, and when it needs more time.

We in America just experienced an election in which an adulterous convicted felon managed to out argue the best the Democratic party had to offer.

Pandering used to be illegal in politics, but it seems some laws just aren't enforced anymore. Even Plato recognized that rhetoric could be used to manipulate and deceive, rather than pursue truth.

AI just makes it easier to do what the wealthy have done for ages.

The days are coming when no one will make movies anymore, but will instead type a prompt into a movie service, and an AI will generate an entire film in realtime.

Think, "NetAI, play me a movie in which the lead character is a big city powerful attorney who returns to her home town at Christmas and reluctantly falls in love with the boy she rejected in high school, who has since become independently wealthy running a winery."

yes, the 'protected' 'democrat' elite donald trump, that was openly mocked by Obama.

I wish you could read what you write.

Al Franken.

[Mic drop]

Doom! Doom! Doom!