The Chinese are going to eat our lunch while people continue blabbering racist propaganda. The Chinese are adopting AI enthusiastically and trying to refine it to serve a variety of outcomes. We are worrying about the threat those outcomes might be to our comfortable existence.

Is funny that people assume the Chinese leadership sees the Chinese people as a threat at the same time that they acknowledge the CCP has things completely under control. Most of its leaders are survivors of the Cultural Revolution. They recognize what the looks like start to finish. They aren't likely to let it be repeated as Tienanmen square demonstrated. But as a result they are confident they can prevent it and are not sitting in fear of giving people useful tools on the off-chance they will be used against them.

No, they didn't. The articles simply found mention of the existence of those cracks. There is nothing I saw that indicated they had actually traced the radiation in the nests to that source.

Precisely and occasionally they try to make their "lalalalalalala" sound intelligible. But that isn't a real argument.

"Guilt" assumes they have a moral code and violated it. Human beings don't feel guilt unless they are violating their own sense of morality. They did something wrong. The idea that it is "self-punishment" is one more step toward making them adopt the values of sociopaths. They can calculate the value of doing something immoral against the cost in terms of self-punishment. The real danger may be that the people training AI are a type of sociopath. They see the world of human culture as one big mathematical calculation.

We not only aren't applying the brakes, we have been accelerating. We measure our "progress" by how much less we are increasing our acceleration.

But I think that analogy reflects an intellectual flaw in our thinking. The problem is not our annual emissions. The problem is the continuing changes from the carbon already in the atmosphere. Any new emissions add to that problem, but reducing emissions doesn't really help solve it. We are still making things worse, just not as much worse.

Net zero just means we won't keep adding to the problem. Our targets for that are 25 years out or more. And it is doubtful we will hit even those targets unless we start treating all current emissions as problematic. Bill Gates has to explain how it benefits the whole world for him to fly around in his private jet. Because the whole world is going to suffer from the emissions he creates.

No, they don't.

They decrease relative to the carbon density of the power alternative removed from the grid at that time and location. Those are different things. If the grid has a mixture of coal power and natural gas, its likely the solar will displace the natural gas. The coal plant will keep churning out the same baseline power and same amount of carbon emissions. Depending on the load demand at that time of day.

This reads like academic theorizing portrayed as real world results. The reality is that the comparisons include a wide range of variables that are based on the very specific project characteristics. Right down to the price of solar installation and the alternative power sources available in a specific location. Computer models based on national, regional or even local averages are pretty much useless for real world decisions.

How about $10 million dollars per gram. If that isn't high enough to make zero emissions economic, then we can put some higher dollar value to them.

There has yet to be nuclear contamination by the United States government that "was cause for alarm." Unless they know exactly what the source of the radiation is there ought to be "cause for alarm." Apparently there is "no cause for alarm" until the contamination is known to be killing people.

Its certainly a novelty and someone could park it out along the highway to get people to stop.

This is a more modern example, Hemming.com should get some hits from this clickbait. Not sure its worth $10,000 much less the price asked. But would this be a story if the guy was asking $10,000? No. What's even more modern is that since he couldn't sell it at a lower price, he raised the price to make it appear more valuable.

I think the trucks are operating almost exclusively on interstate and on a fixed route aren't they?

I have a lot more confidence in self-driving semi's used by business than I do with self-driving cars that are sold to individual consumers. Businesses are going to buy and use them based on their performance. The individual consumer will buy and use them based on whatever emotional appeal the marketing creates.

That doesn't sound like they are voiding the warranty except for things caused by the failure to update. Once you update, even if after 45 days, the warranty would still be good since your failure to update earlier likely wouldn't be the cause of the problem.

I was just joking. But more seriously, while AI's flaws are different than humans, its not clear that they have any worse impact on results.

Which makes them an almost perfect simulation of human intelligence.

"Computer" on star trek is fictional. Real life is always going to faded compared to what we can imagine.

No, they don't. There are many people in the world who don't own or even have access to a personal computer. But they have a phone. However your basic point is correct, the smart phone didn't replace computers for all purposes. But they did make them much less essential.

I think the question is will AI dramatically reduce the importance of screen based information and communication. I think that is possible. A world where a screen is an auxiliary device rather than the central one is not that hard to imagine.