It is (or at least can be), among other things, a good search engine.

The problem is that people don't know how to use it yet. EXPECT most attempts to fail. Most early attempts to use computers failed.

Of course, with AI the problem's a bit worse because it keeps changing so rapidly. Currently the rule of thumb is "You can train an AI do do a good job if it's easy to verify that a proposed solution is correct.",

You already acknowledged the catch when you said "Or, at least, any new ones.". Small groups are really much more interested in the kind that were useful in WW I, because those are easier to make. Doing development for new weapons is dangerous to the developer.

If IQ were valid, it wouldn't be particularly low. Unfortunately, it's sensitive to culture and education, so you are probably right. But don't confuse it with potential intelligence. IQ is basically a measure of how well you could do in school with reasonable effort, so if you didn't pay attention last year, your IQ is lower.

That said, intelligence *is* real. It's just that IQ is a really bad measure of it.

Called standard by who? I guess we shouldn't call the Imperial units, though. But I've *never* heard them called "standard" before.

I really doubt that it's the largest single market. I suspect that's China. The US and India are probably up there in the running too.

I'm not sure. I can imagine software displaying ads that I would not consider malware. E,g, Firefox displays many ads on Slashdot, and only the ones that hide parts that I'm trying to read to I really consider malware.

Define "malware". This would seem to fit my definition. Yeah, it's an edge case, but it seems on the "malware" side of the line.

I think you're quite optimistic. I'd go with "Security can be vastly strengthened", but even BSD has had bugs.

Currently you are overrating AI. There are circumstances where it's the right choice, and circumstances where it isn't. But the point keeps changing.

Well, yes. Because it enables people to take precautions against it. But it sure doesn't prove it won't happen.

Note: It doesn't even have to be done with malicious intent. Lots of people just write really unexpected prompts. The more you have doing that, the more edge cases you have.

It's not the "AI slop", it's "the slop". People are quite capable of generating slop. So you must rate the contributors on their history, not on what tool they choose to use.

But if they don't use AI to filter the contributions, they're likely to drown in slop. The problem is the false negatives.

FWIW, I think master/slave means controller/controlled. And it's shorter (though not by much). Blacklist I'm less clear about. (I can pretty much guess most of the meaning, but edge cases leave me uncertain.)

And that's a problem. Python survived Guido's abdication, but what are the plans for Linux?