You know every extinct species that existed before us, from the dodo-bird to the tyrannosaurus .. they all were wiped out by some catastrophic event such as a meteor or some other more capable and adapted species outcompeting them. Humans on the other hand, will be discovered by some future actual-intelligent species .. likely some descendent of cockroaches, if not an alien race, as the one species in the entire galaxy who self-annihilated themselves -- and that too over stupid shit. The only thing that might prevent the nature of our demise being the laughingstock is that it would be considered too far fetched and ridiculous to be true.

More like 99.99%. Maybe need some more nines in there. Large C codebases without regular critical CVEs are basically nonexistent.

What bankruptcy-prevention actions are they asking for?

Many years back (early 2000s) I dated a gal who lived on Treasure Island (which is in the SF Bay Area). I was like "say, this place is nice ..and the location is convenient.. why don't more people live here?". Then I got to explore the island a bit.

15-25 kWh drawn by the utility is quite a bit! I hope they're paying him well for that.

They're bringing outside scrutiny into their processes; that's going to slow them down, too.

Not "at the same time". You're conflating what AI can do now with what it will likely be able to do in a year or five, or 20.

Amodei and others are worried about what AI that doesn't yet exist may do, not about what current-generation AI can do. AI is getting better, very quickly, and unless there's some blocking obstacle that no one has been able to identify will at some point become far, far smarter than humans, individually or collectively. So before that happens, we need to figure out how to make sure that superintelligent AI wants to help us, and wants to do it in the right way.

They want to squish competition. They don't want you running models locally. That's all the is. Classic play when a company gets big they start asking government to put in regulations so that small players have to go through mountains of paperwork and make their investors afraid due to all the uncertainty. How do you think the pharmaceuticals ground innovation to a halt by using the FDA as a battering ram? It costs $2 billion to do a clinical trial in the US .. nobody's going to invest that much on any crazy ideas. The EPA does the same. It's all a racket.

""Run as fast as you can.""

Translation: Me like money

As an anti-racist with a geography degree, this is solving a problem that doesn't exist. Walk into any classroom on earth and chances are good they won't have the mercator projection on the wall, they'll have something better representative of area, often a Robinson projection.

VR is guaranteed flop unless they can make a headset under 100 grams, 4K per eye, and 120 fps. If it can't be done, VR can't be done. If the laws of physics prevent it, the laws of physics prevent VR. Even Meta's future headset, Phoenix, may flop because although it is (supposedly) 75 grams it will likely be a mere 2.5K and only achieve 90 fps. Of course when it fails they will claim the VR concept itself isn't wanted by consumers rather than blame their stupid implementation. Don't even attempt to make a VR headset if your concept can't do a minimum of 4K per eye (ideally 8K per eye @ 120 degree FoV) and 100 grams (ideally 50 or less -- normal sunglasses weigh 20 grams) and 120 fps.

Ok, I'm tempted. Not enough to preorder, but if the reviews are good enough I might go for this.

I've had one for some time, but literally NOBODY believes how well it works .. not until a test drive or two. I'm surprised a bunch of idiots didn't reply you saying "omg, its not really driving itself .. you're supervising it" ..or that you're intervening but your brain deletes it from your memory. Slashdot luddites in particular are adamant that cars can never drive themselves -- there are too many "variables".

Is this actually a substantial amount of energy? I'm in Utah (Rocky Mountain Power) and RMP also pays me to use my batteries... but the amount of energy they draw is tiny. 8-10 times per week they draw on my batteries, but it's like 4 kW peak draw (my batteries can sustain 20 kW), and generally for less than 30 seconds, so in any given week I'm only contributing like 0.2 kWh. As I understand it, this is because RMP uses my batteries not really to "serve loads", per se, but just as grid stabilization; brief backfill to keep the voltage from sagging.

Obviously my batteries do serve *my* loads, which reduces the load on the grid, but that's not what RMP pays me for.

Does CA make heavier use of residential batteries to feed the grid?