Global AI tech spending is said to surpass 2.5 trillion this year.

Sorry, Gates is a small fish in that pond.

We have the British Library. Not too be confused with the British Museum where we keep all our loot.

I'm struggling to understand the logic, even from a MAGA perspective. How does making tech more expensive for US companies help them compete against Chinese companies?

The problems start when someone falsely accuses you of being AI. I've seen people applying for jobs be accused of it. If your application gets silently rejected because of that it's affecting your life quite severely.

Because there is a lot of negativity about China and Chinese brands.

In the UK you can buy an MG, and they are good, solid, well made cars, at very reasonable prices. MG is a very old British car brand, and stands for Morris Garages. Their cars were crap and they went bust decades ago because they couldn't compete with European and Japanese manufacturers.

Now they are a SAIC (Shanghai Automotive) brand. SAIC sells commercial vehicles under its own name here too, because commercial buyers are only interested in the numbers and no all the nonsense about Chinese products that consumers pick up on.

It works both ways. Berghaus is British, not German. Haggen Dazs is American, not Danish. Matsui is British, not Japanese, as is Superdry (all the Japanese writing on their clothes is nonsense).

But if you don't connect that remote sensor or monitoring station to the internet, they have to send someone to go read it. That costs money, so of course they demand it is on the internet. The marketing department needs that feature because all the competitors have it and the customers put it as a hard requirement in their spec.

These things are never driven by engineering.

The two articles were probably written by two different ghost-writers.

AI isn't actually smart. It's an at best average intelligence thing with an insane amount of available knowledge. Like the village idiot with eidetic memory.

As soon as you do any work with AI that's not available as a ready-to-apply solution from its training data, you begin to notice how much you need to correct it, keep it on track, remind it of basic constraints you already mentioned five times, etc. - it's performing at a level I'd accept from an intern, but not from a co-worker.

What it does have is data. Tons of data. Any question that would take you and me half an hour on Google and Wikipedia to answer it can answer in 10 seconds. That's a great tool. It is not intelligence, however.

How is this "news that matter"?

Bill Gates is an old man who has zero AI credentials and has long ago become irrelevant. Not to mention his previous predictions of future developments are not exactly brilliant.

Depends if they were prevented from getting up, or not told by the company to get up periodically. Most will include that as part of induction.

They also need to supply a suitable chair, and reasonably ergonomic workspace.

So they need some lithium hydride in there too apparently.

Obviously weight is an issue but so is your staff getting cancer.

I did, no copies in the UK apparently.

The way it works in Europe is that the employer has a legal responsibility to identify things that can harm employees, and take reasonable steps to mitigate them. The three things identified in the lawsuit - passive smoking, night shifts, and cosmic radiation - have all been known to cause cancer for a very long time.

They stopped the smoking in 2000. The night shifts continued, and they didn't install any radiation shielding in the aircraft. They also knew that going over the poles increased the dose their staff were getting, and didn't make much effort to at least rotate them onto different flights.

You have to understand that most of the people using these systems are not highly trained, and if you make them secure they will just blame you for them not doing their jobs and their boss will start shouting at you. It's "this needs fixing NOW, we are losing money!" vs "you might get hacked in future".

Once when I suggested we should secure a system the guy told me that we were not an important enough target to get hacked and so couldn't justify the expense.

The only solution is to make security a legal requirement and enforce it with regular inspections and heft fines.