Well, that does tend to produce about one baby per month on average.

The point is that the best way to eliminate abortion is to make contraception easy, effective and cheap.

Oh yeah, some of those French plants shut down because the water got too warm in the heatwave.

Those are not affected by the jelly fish plague :D because they are along fresh water rivers.

That quote was in the article, but the article title was about a four-day work week. Kamelia Aryafar, the author, clearly thought (correctly) that AI would allow engineers to get a week's worth of work done in less than a week and then thought (incorrectly) that this would mean developers would respond by ending their week as soon as they had done that.

What actually happens, of course, is that if you can get done in one day what used to take five, you now do five weeks' worth of work every week.

Fundamentally, productivity isn't the constraint on working hours. If that were true, Keynes' expectation that we'd be working 15-hour weeks would be true. What constrains working hours is the limits of human ability to remain attentive and focused and the demands of human life, and those constraints turn out to be roughly 40 hours per week. A little more or less than that depending on the person and on the nature of the work.

Increasing productivity has never really changed working hours, it just increases productivity, which makes us all wealthier. Yes, all of us, including the workers -- if you believe all of the gains accrue only to the bosses or owners of capital you really need to learn more about what life was like in past decades and centuries.

The things AleRunner mentioned are plausible outcomes of misaligned artificial superintelligence, and the research in question is trying to prevent those outcomes. If you have good arguments as to why those outcomes are implausible, a lot of people would like to hear them -- including the AI companies and their safety researchers.

You misunderstand the purpose of this research, and the reason for publishing it. The research is not about "flexing", it's about safety, trying to understand the risks that we may be facing as the agent capabilities increase. AGI or not AGI is actually irrelevant here. What the researchers are trying to understand is what the agents will do when they face apparent opposition.

The cooperative results are great, because we think that's what we'd like highly-capable agents to do, to look for reasoned, peaceful resolutions. What we don't want them to do is to become aggressive, or to fail to step back and look at the larger situation.

And the reason for publishing it is to enable other researchers to see it and build on it, quickly, because everyone working on this stuff understands that it could pose an existential risk to humans. Find and talk to some people who work on AI research; they all worry about this. Many of them actually believe that we'd be better off if everyone stopped the research, or at least slowed it down significantly, but everyone knows that's never going to happen. So, their best option is to create the most capable and best-aligned AI, as quickly as possible. It needs to be well-aligned so it doesn't pose a threat to human existence. It needs to be capable so it can protect us from badly-aligned AI.

The IPOs won't stop the research, nor the publication. If you're not interested in it, just don't read it.

The parts of Europe we are talking about are far far far further north than 47 latitude.
Mainz is 52 latitude north.
Rome is 48 latitude north.
And then comes Hamburg, London, Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm, Helsinki, Edinburgh and so on ..

sounds like the plots of a cheap SF movie.

MMmmm, I understand the sentiment. But I think you'll find that's not true. The Oracle database, alone, has a long history of engineering behind it that has not truly been replicated by other products. Of course, this is really only relevant for corner cases, but these exist, and they're usually folks who have big budgets (like governments, or large enterprises). And at that level, what they're paying for is not the technology as-shipped, but the support ... which means you have a "throat to choke" in terms of lawsuits, but could also mean building something that's proprietary for your business.

Problem is China needs the US to buy their goods almost as much as the US needs to buy their goods. Refusing to sell to the US isn't really an option for China. Anyway it's certainly not an easy thing for China to do.

If students are being subjected to 4 GPa of pressure (40,000 bar), that's a real problem. I mean, that would crush their bodies beyond the limits of molecular cohesion, rupturing all cell membranes and turning all of their bodies' water into high-density ice. If the university is regularly murdering students this way, they should be stopped.

I'm not sure how pass/fail grades help, though.

Hmm that sounds familiar. Seems to work for Trump, so it should work for everyone else, right? Anything goes now. Heck he's still trying to put his name back on the Kennedy Center even though only an act of Congress can do that, and he's still trying to get his way regarding birthright citizenship even though the supreme court told him straight up it wasn't constitutional. If Trump can make a mockery of the whole system, then what this guy did is perfectly fine.

Agreed; I was going to say the same about _worth_. Markets may price their stock there. But I am not seeing a path or rev / profit model thatâ(TM)s making that make sense.

Maybe /. could point ai at their comment input / display code⦠getting escape-code alts to â is a 90s thing.

Agreed; I was going to say the same about âworthâ(TM). Markets may price their stock there. But Iâ(TM)m not seeing a path or rev / profit model thatâ(TM)s making that make sense.

Each AI company defines tokens somewhat differently, so it's not possible to compare costs-per-token between the different companies' products.
Perhaps how tokens are used in "calculations".

Not how tokens are generated from input.