How do you know it's in a child's room? Turn off the camera, pervert!

... gotten over their M&A psychosis.

Face it: Drug efficacy wears off. They have to switch to the next more powerful stimulant.

OK Elon. Don't get too excited now.

Power is the ultimate aphrodesiac. 60 Hz more so than 50.

But seriously. What power? They can't buy my consent. And will only embarrass themselves if they try. Which makes them look impotent and is a sure sign of a lack of power.

Everything is a contract, which by definition, requires my voluntary agreement. Without that, any civil court will throw the case out of court if I fail to deliver on an obligation I didn't agree to freely. And that will make them look stupid as well as impotent.

I'd venture a guess that most crashes into school busses will more than likely kill the car driver than the bus occupants. And if the driver survives, the sentence will be far more than a few K$.

The lights are for protecting kids around the bus on foot. Who are much more easily injured/killed. And the fines likely to be very high as well.

Private companies don't do things without a return on investment. These "psychopathic billionaires" found a business opportunity following defund the police movements. Instead of cops hiding behind every billboard, your town can now pay to have some cameras mounted*. Which cost a lot less.

*Far cheaper than cities DIY the surveillance systems. But if you want to see a really distopian world, ban federal law enforcement from accessing these local systems. And then watch them install their own. Or rather, expand the program of installing them. They are already up in a few select locations.

emacs

It has a psychiatrist.

Thank you.

This.

Looks like there is a review process in place. And it caught this move in time. The "legal mandate" may have existed before this. But not triggered until ownership was to be changed.

What is that in Internet years?

But when you are sitting in your F-35 and you receive targeting orders with some coordinates, how you you know what system or person was behind that decision?

And just like "autonomous cars are safer", AI based target selection might be safer (and less biased) than humans make. One can make the argument that an AI system could have integrated data from more sources and not called for the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.

How do you know if it's AI? Are you going to come in and inspect my workplace? Audit my (company proprietary) tools source code?

Every time I read a post about how good and efficient AI is, and we all need to adopt it, I wonder about motives. If I had some neat toolset that enabled me to outproduce my competition, I'd keep my mouth shut. 'Sure. Give me the requirements and I'll run back to the shop and code something.' And it turns out that my code is more efficient and less buggy than everyone elses'. How do I do it? I guess I'm just good. So hire me.

All too often, when someone promotes a neat app that they've written, using AI, flawlessly, in a few minutes, it turns out that they work for an outfit that produces AI tools (or middle-ware). Or provides consulting services to adapt AI to existing workplaces.

The top level AI companies (Google, Anthropic, OpenAI) are basically doing their best to shove AI down the production pipelines. And get the lower tier app producers to load up on it and consume lots of tokens. In much the same way that auto manufacturers pushed product out onto dealers' lots.

Not difficult to understand. Slashdot editors have written hundreds of megabytes of summaries without spell checkers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrflH6KvPwo

Perhaps.

But they need to ask for their money back. No link to their web site included.