Problem is: We don't even know what consciousness is.

So the best we can say is if something creates the impression of having one, based on whom we attribute consciousness to, i.e. other humans. Well, big surprise that a model explicitly trained on human language and texts creates that impression. It does show just how good the models are. At pretending to be human because they have a shitload of examples on what humans would say.

For all we know, the gas clouds on Jupiter could be conscious, just in a way that is completely baffling to us. We can't rule it out because we don't know what consciousness is, so we can't test for it.

Not true.

An attacker may have a limited window. He might exploit some other vulnerability to do some operation with privileged access rights, but not have an admin shell.

You're not saying?

But they take security so seriously. They said. They promised. This time for real. No, this time. Ok, next time.

This.

Whenever a politician claims that something is "to protect the children", you can be 100%, absolutely certain that it is not about the children.

Oh, that's trivial: a) it's made-up nonsense, b) it tells people how to live their lives and c) it's been around for so long that people forgot that it's made-up nonsense.

None of that or the rest of your answer has anything to do with the point I was making: That "accepted as a religion in the USA" isn't much of an argument. If people can get Jedi accepted as a religion, it just proves how meaningless all of that is. Other countries have correctly identified Scientology as a pyramid scheme and a scam.

The fact that other religions would qualify for that as well doesn't make it any less true.

Yeah, but isn't the bar for that ridiculously low in the US? Like the Jedi "religion" being tax-exempt on religious grounds? And there's no discussion that that one is based purely on fiction.

No, I did not. These are features that exist for my convenience, not as mass surveillance tools. The government is abusing them.

Yes, if you have control of the cell towers. Or run an IMSI catcher. But the technological solution applied is not the question. The question is if we want someone as untrustworthy as our governments to be able to constantly track us.

The fact that you personally maybe don't care doesn't give you the right to opt-in all of us who might care. The problem is that once the technology exists, it will be abused. It already is. If we explicitly allow it, abuse will run rampant. We already have examples of cops using surveillance tech to spy on their spouses, or to stalk that cute girl from the bar. We have tons of examples of surveillance permissions granted for one purpose being used for another one. When the government wants these laws it's always to find child abusers and terrorists. But that is never what they actually have in mind.

I don't think it's the AI specifically, but the fact that they've used AI to let go of competent (and expensive) people.

I'm using AI as a coding assist and code reviewer myself. It is impressive how often it is spot on, but it is also impressive with how much conviction it tells you one thing, then after you correct it it admits that that was totally bonkers. AI or not, you need someone in the loop with a deep understanding of what it actually is you are trying to accomplish.

I can fully imagine an AI without guidance to go off the rails more and more over time. But I can imagine the same thing for a room full of junior programmers.

I am honestly surprised how long it took them to ruin it. I moved my projects off github years ago, expecting it to fail much sooner.

Leading question.

Would you want to spend your entire life in a small cell all by yourself? Because then your wallet definitely won't get stolen.

Yes, life is not risk-free. But we have done a great job at making it several orders of magnitude less risky without mass surveillance, and it is doubtful if turning a free society into a police state would do all that much on top of that.

Every time you sit in your car, you risk injury, permanent disfigurement or disability and death - because all of these happen every day as the result of traffic accidents. And yet, without even being consciously aware of it, you hope every day that today it's not you.
You seriously want to tell me that that's a risk you are willing to take, but having your car keys stolen justifies mass surveillance?

Absolutely not, no.

I have some on my private property, because you don't have an expectation of privacy when trespassing on private property. But in public, we all should not feel under constant surveillance. There's a reason why China et al love total surveillance of the population so much.

Unless they acquired your explicit consent BEFORE the information gathering, the argument would still be the same.

Not at all.

But corruption and planned cost overruns and all kinds of "bid low then add costs later" tactics are working - for the politicians, the managers, the shareholders.

We absolutely do know how to run large projects and how to build large infrastructure. It's just that applying that knowledge is less profitable than fucking over taxpayers.

Easy solution:

If there is an accident at a nuclear plant, and even a hint of management being responsible, then management must join the crews doing the clean-up work, and they must be at the very frontlines.

I'm pretty sure that adding radiation poisoning to the equation changes the importance of quarterly results somewhat.

You are right, I didn't know or didn't remember those.