It's really the same problem that we see with quantum physics -- the subject matter is esoteric enough that common sense can't be used to determine whether what you're listening to is really advanced theory or utter BS (or some combination of the two); they both sound the same, and the situation isn't helped by the presence of large numbers of people who think they know what they are talking about but don't.
I think the distinction they are making is between technology that kills people, and technology that entertains people. If someone fitted actual weapons to a Doom engine, they'd probably object.
I am sure you know this and are just trying to shit on the editors, as one does on
But here's the part I find interesting: why assume a superintelligent AI would actually want to kill us?
Let's make the hopeful assumption that the superintelligent AIs will not "go rogue" in any way, but will correctly try to carry out their tasks as assigned by the people who designed and trained them.
Pretty much every major nation has military AIs, at this point. So the Chinese AIs are working hard on how to defeat the Americans, and the American AIs are working hard on how to defeat the Russians, and so on. In the final analysis, no matter where you live, there is probably an AI that has been explicitly tasked by its operators with figuring out the most effective ways to do you in. Not because they've "gone wrong", but because they're working as intended.
The size of the universe is increasing...
but the rate at which it is increasing is decreasing...
but the rate at which the rate is decreasing is increasing...
but the rate at which the rate of the rate is increasing is decreasing...
but the rate at which the rate of the rate of the rate is decreasing in increasing...
[... and so on, ad infinitum...]
People commonly overestimate the possibility of "all humans dying", and simultaneously underestimate the possibility of "billions of humans dying".
People are like cockroaches that way; a disaster could wipe out 99% of us, and there would still be millions of us left to repopulate afterwards. To truly wipe out all humans would take something more severe than the asteroid that did for the dinosaurs.
Which people? It's owners? The government?
Whoever set up its reward function, really. Could be any of the above. The technology doesn't care, it only follows its algorithm.
But... I'm sure Apple is going to sell* boatloads of these damn foldable phones.
I'm not. $2K is an eye-watering amount to spend on a cell phone, even in 2026, and especially on a design that seems almost guaranteed to start wearing a vertical line into the display at the folding-point over time. I expect a number of Slashdot articles about unhappy Duo users demanding redress over that issue, even if everything else works as advertised.
Maybe in a better economy, people would splurge on something like this, but I don't think that's the zeitgest this season.
n/t
When you boil it down, situational awareness is little more than our attempt to maintain a mental model of what's happening around us. And models can be wrong.
Do humans have eyes on the sides of their heads? In the back of their heads? Can they watch all directions simultaneously? No.
Can they instantaneously detect changes in speed and direction? No.
Can they react in microseconds? No.
No to all of that. In fact, numerous studies have shown that most people can only deal with about three events occurring at the same time. Throw one more into the mix and they start to lock up.
And "the fact that numerous people surrender all of that" is precisely the problem. People get distracted. They daydream. They drive on autopilot. They become impaired.They lose focus. They get old and slow down. They're not looking in the right direction when some event occurs. And even when they do they often make poor decisions. They overreact and they overcompensate.
And that's when 40,000 people a year die.
Pretty sure most Model 3's and Y's don't have odor detectors, and those are supposedly the vehicles owners would send out to make money why they sleep.
America seems weak because we still have some semblance of sanity holding us back from violence.
No doubt America has the resources to wreak havoc if it wanted to do so. OTOH, at this point, nobody in America (outside of Trump and Stephen Miller) wants to do so. A sufficiently popular and persuasive demagogue might change that, but Trump's debacle in Iran has demonstrated that he is not that person. I don't think JD Vance has what it takes to go "full Hitler" either, although I suppose he could (unpleasantly) surprise me.
Tesla's numbers already indicate that it's better. (Then again, they're Tesla's numbers.) But my point remains, if they cut down the number of deaths, injuries, and fender-benders it's a net win.
What, if anything I posted was in defense of Elon? All of the above were facts. That's where the HQ is. That's where the engineers are. That's the Texas law.
... and the technology to algorithmically generate a plausible comments section for any Slashdot article is now commonplace.
The only way you'd be able to tell the difference is that in the AI-generated comment section, the AI posters wouldn't spend half of every post telling the previous poster how stupid they are.
He who is content with his lot probably has a lot.
