Copilot isn't working, either.

For a small model (think handwriting recognition, say, 6x8 pixels), it is actually possible to construct a formal proof that the model will correctly identify digits and characters correctly. However, it is usually more expedient just to test with a large sample of typical inputs. In such cases, an error ratio smaller than what a human would produce, and the low risk of failure makes this approach acceptable.

However, for LLMs and models of the size typically used in self driving, it is practically impossible to verify the model (think heat death of the universe) using formal methods. The best that one can do is identify the desired outcome and perform statistical tests to determine the error percentage. When it comes to applications such as criminal sentencing, self driving, and applicant selection where mistakes expose the model user to substantial liability, AI may be more appropriate in an assistive role where a human must be in the decision loop. Even so, there are yet a large number of AI applications where mediocre performance (i.e. good enough, with occasional errors) is in fact good enough to justify the cost savings.

It is programs like the one proposed here which represent a structural danger to society: because of doctrines like sovereign immunity, a state which certifies a model as "safe" does not actually have any responsibility for the harm caused by such a representation. That is, a company which relies on the state's safety certification can avoid liability for harm caused by the model, and the state has neither the responsibility nor the incentive to test the model in an intellectually honest and formally rigorous way. Thus, the cost of testing the model is borne by the state, the liability for mistakes is borne by the public at large, and the disproportionate profit such an arrangement facilitates accrues to the benefit of private corporations.

Guaranteeing that AI won't cause harm is a matter of making sure it can't control anything that could cause harm. Think air gap. Think novelties, jokes, etc... There are many good uses for AI that literally can't harm someone, but I strongly suspect NY intends something a bit more nefarious and needs the imprimatur of an official state agency to secure the trust of the public.

We need new techniques that can be applied to this new kind of system with swarms of autonomous agents acting independently and without control. How can you first detect that they're going to do harm, and how can you prevent them from doing harm?" said Wing. "The beauty of what's being proposed is that this state is committing resources to really light this up."

I know it's old hat to talk about traditional software engineering techniques, especially when there's the taxpayer's purse to loot, but there already exist solutions to these problems. I get it - these folks would rather have someone else pay for their ignorance, but the beauty of AI is that it can be counted on to break in new and novel ways. It's funny when AI swears when autocorrecting texts, but if you should find yourself blown to bits because you let AI control your air defense network, it's hard to blame anyone except yourself.

AI is not some novel type of technology outside the realm of traditional formal proofs and testing regimes. The problem is that even testing conventional systems is expensive, and AI systems even moreso. So, the solution - in the case of New York - is to get the taxpayer to foot the bill (thereby socializing the losses) so that the profits can be privatized. The canard of "public safety" is hung like a sword of Damocles over the public at large so that those who would loot the public purse can do so without arousing the suspicions that they are doing just that.

It is remarkable how much harm can be prevented by autonomous systems when the politically-well connected are held responsible for their failures. Should Black Rock executives find themselves in prison because one of their companies' AI systems accidentally microwaves a kitten (hypothetical example), the necessary corrections will be made post haste. But until that day, we can safely predict that the rich will never miss an opportunity to transfer responsibility from themselves to the public at large, and money from the public at large to themselves.

Finding a hotel that can accommodate a family of 4 is not that difficult. Finding one that can accommodate a family of 8 is a bit more challenging. Finding one which can accommodate 8 adult siblings, their children, spouses, etc... is nearly impossible. The short-term rental market is the only realistic option for those people who want to meet with the rest of their family for an extended weekend.

Hotels are set up for small gatherings (an individual room or two), large gatherings (hundreds to thousands in a conference room), but seldom in between.

The last time my in-laws got together, we numbered almost 40 people. Airbnb rentals provide accommodations which are much more practical for those people who want to spend a holiday together with their geographically distributed relatives. Yes, the cleaning can be substantial. But making guests both clean the place, and then pay an additional cleaning fee (in the hundreds to thousands of dollars) seems ridiculous.

Well, they do say the Universe is expanding... now we know why - Galactic Sugar is everywhere.

A colleague of mine working for Motorola patented encrypted memory sometime in the 2006-2010 timeframe. Maybe Motorola figured out that AMD was violating their patent and negotiated royalties privately with AMD. I don't know; I don't work at Motorola, but if AMD had to suddenly start paying royalties, it makes sense that they'd remove the feature from lower end, lower margin processors.

Grading on a curve was meant to hide the fact that some teachers couldn't teach, some could, some wouldn't, and others would. It protected the professor at the expense of the students' education.

And it ruins grades as a marker of achievement or ability. From a student's perspective, if I pay for a course, the result should be that my grade reflects the degree to which I've mastered the material, not the variations between the quality of the students and the quality of the instruction. Grading on a curve allows a deadbeat professor and a deadbeat class to essentially turn the class into a credential mill without the necessity of education.

Students can safely assume that courses graded on a curve are staffed by incompetent or lazy professors, taken by lazy or incompetent students, or quite possibly both. When I was in university, this type of grading was used most often in the general education electives, where the professors didn't really care about the students, and the students didn't care about the subject. To adopt the same approach for mainline courses is to transform the entire university from a place of learning into a credentials broker or diploma mill.

With respect to being a "lying snake," this is the C-Suite, not rank and file employees. When it comes to the C-Suite, such behavior is generally accepted, if not expected, and hardly a reason for firing.

I mean, can you even name the last time a CEO was fired for lying?

The biggest problem with replicating CUDA is not the technical aspects, but finding VC with enough brains to know whom to hire. Most CS grads have the knowledge, but not the drive. Most liberal arts grads have the drive, the creativity, but not the knowledge. You need to find one with both, because creating the next Nvidia killer will require someone who is boring enough to reinvent the wheel, but has enough creativity to find novel solutions to performance problems.

The computer science and hardware engineering behind the hardware and software (Nvidia/CUDA) have been known for decades. The Nvidia hardware could be replicated with FPGAs - notwithstanding any patents Nvidia might have. The software API could be replicated rather easily; parallelism has been known and studied in computer engineering (again) for decades now. What Nvidia did was political - they provided both the hardware and the API to easily use it in one package which could be understood by the C-Suite class. The challenge was never technical, but marketing.

More specifically, you'd need to understand how compilers work, and how to use YACC or bison, or something similar to generate the compiler code for you. You'd have to understand digital logic and how to create logic functions with NAND gates. If you see an FPGA development kit, know what it is, and think to yourself, "What I could do with that..." you're probably a good fit for the job. And you'd need someone willing to bankroll your project until you could demonstrate that you beat Nvidia on something marketable - like floating point performance. Or power consumption.

From an engineering standpoint, what Nvidia has done is trivial - because the solution could be reproduced by an engineer using already known techniques. But what Nvidia did was to combine technical knowledge with an understanding of their market to produce the dominant position they have today. Any computer engineer worth his diploma could produce a design with FPGAs that would beat Nvidia GPUs, but Nvidia did it first.

So even hackers can be replaced by AI now? What is this world coming to?!

In the military, the mission - and only the mission - matters.

Most of the officers in the position to observe a UFO are not in the position to order an investigation. Even if they were, they'd have to justify the use of taxpayer dollars to support what could easily be characterized as a "curiosity" rather than the fundamental mission of air power. The best most of them can do is record their experience in the debrief, and rely on civilian scientists to investigate it further.

Can we stop pretending that America is still stuck in the 1960's? The overwhelming majority of Americans no longer have a Jim Crow mindset, and no longer regard as remarkable when a woman or "person of color" (i.e., an ordinary person) does something that white people have been doing for years. Diversity is ordinary now, and has been for the past few decades.

Diversity is like a religion with some people - no matter how much you (Americans) repent, you are still a sinner and in need of grace and forgiveness from TPB.

Or perhaps they instead voted for a better economy, and this was a part of the package deal, whether they wanted it or not.

We have a republic, not a democracy. We didn't vote for this, but for the person who would occupy the office of the President. How much different would our country be if legislation proposed by congress had to be passed by national referendum? It's not the 18th century anymore. The bills are published on the Internet. We could create an electronic voting system which would allow the public to vote every spring and fall for proposed legislation, except for the fact that such a system would take power out of the hands of the politicians and return it to the people.

I don't get the Rust hatred. C has implicitly had an "unsafe" mode for much longer than Rust.

If you're a C kernel developer, you can jump on the Rust bandwagon very easily: just put the keyword unsafe in your comments and you can write code just like Rust developers.

Maybe, just maybe, this mistake was caused by the fact that the same sort of people who are likely to write bugs into their code are the same types of people who prefer "safe" languages because understanding the subtle nuances of how computers work is difficult. They would prefer a system where they couldn't make mistakes, rather than a system where they had to understand the code and the machine to a high level. There's a place in the world for these sorts of people, but it's not in OS/kernel development. The sort of I-can't-make-mistakes-with-Rust mindset probably lulled the coder into a false sense of security, with the predictable outcome.