Considering what AI (that is built with safeguards and/or restricted in its availability) is already capable of when it comes to finding exploits in software and other dangerous things, imagine what an AI specifically built as an offensive cyber-weapon could be capable of doing.

The companies that design the chips and contract overseas fabs to make them are very much American. The US can absolutely tell, say, NVIDIA that it has to do this with its chips regardless of where they ultimately get made.

You also have to give them achievable parameters. "You are always responsible" is not realistic. In some cases someone else is, in fact, responsible. And that's the rub of regulation, not that I think this means we shouldn't regulate, but it's going to always be true that doing it well takes effort. You can only ever reasonably expect that people are moving forwards (at best) and doing what is reasonably and humanly possible, and hopefully advancing the state of the art. Determining whether or not they are doing that is inherently complex.

The silly things that happened in the last decades is:
- decline in local capabilities
- don't build, buy cheap on the world market
- world market (China / Venezuela) reacts and supplies the market
- cry because some self invented enemy controls the world market
- invent lies and blame them for slavery and other absurd things, like pollution
- then invade and steal what you can ... worked in Venezuela, did not work in Iran

And: everyone involved knew the dates and could buy shares or options or make future trade deals to profit from it.

USA is a kleptocracy, last 50 years they stole from their own population, and since Iraq and Afghanistan they openly invade other countries and plunder the gold and the museums.

Do you honestly believe that mass debt forgiveness -- after COVID was already over! -- was a necessary emergency response to the pandemic? Suspending payments (and interest) during the pandemic made perfect sense, and that was not struck down. I don't recall that it was even challenged.

No, the debt forgiveness clearly had nothing to do with the (already-ended) emergency, it was just an attempt to skirt the law, and the courts were quite correct to strike it down as executive overreach. If Biden wanted to do that, he should have lobbied Congress to change the law. He didn't do that, of course, because he knew Congress would refuse -- even though his party held both houses.

Your comment mischaracterizes what has happened. The Supreme Court has absolutely bent over backwards to let Trump do what he wants in temporary rulings, including jumping in to to stay lower-court orders that no previous court would even have responded to. But their on-the-merits rulings, when they have to issue a full opinion, have been much less friendly to Trump. There have been some incredibly bad ones (e.g. immunity) but Trump has lost more than he has won in SCOTUS final judgements.

That's how it used to work here in the USA. Then the subsidies were terminated in favor of forcing students to get loans. Then a US senator led a campaign to prevent those students from discharging that debt through bankruptcy. That senator's name was (and is) Joseph R. Biden.

The boomers got the handout. I don't want anything they didn't get.

I don't expect to get it. I do expect to immediately discount any bullshit from the hypocrites who got it and think I shouldn't get it.

You didn't get it, and you're insisting nobody deserves it because you didn't get it, which is sad. You're sad.

OK, how do we provide this feedback? The article is chock-full of links, but not one for that. It gives strong "get fucked" energy.

Since it's not worth putting out the effort to figure out where to submit some comments they definitely won't give a fuck about anyway: In no way is it a "first class" anything when it's only for GNOME and only in a snap. Let us know when it's ready for prime time so we can test it out and decide if we care. There's a 0% chance I'm going to use GNOME or snap.

So, "People With Disabilities Don't Exist" then?

My father was recently paralyzed by Guillain-Barré, so I'll let him know, thanks.

Yes.

So you moved the goalposts and declared victory? Good work, clown.

HFDWHhwHAHQAHHAHAHAHAHHAHa HA HAHAHHAHAHAH ahHAHAHAHAH HA AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

You're treating the current law as a standard handed down from on high, incontrovertible and guaranteed-correct, which must be applied verbatim. And, indeed, laws must be applied as written... but that doesn't mean the laws are perfect forever. Laws are written within a context, and when the context changes, the laws have to change.

In a world where all cars are driven by humans, if you want to protect highway workers one way to do it is to attach serious prison time to killing one and to publicize that fact loudly so that all of the drivers know that they should be especially cautious around highway workers, even more than they would around other sorts of pedestrians (let's put aside the moral debate about whether we actually should protect highway workers more than other pedestrians).

In a world where some cars are driven by software systems, that strategy doesn't really work -- as your question correctly points out -- but the right conclusion isn't "Therefore self-driving cars shouldn't be allowed", or "Therefore we must identify some scapegoat human at the company to put in prison". The right conclusion is "Therefore we need a different kind of regulation to keep highway workers safe from self-driving cars". What should that be? I can think of lots of possibilities, both pro-active (e.g. require self-driving vehicles to demonstrate in rigorous testing that their vehicles stay far from highway workers, with whatever minimum distance you want to specify) and reactive (severe penalties, up to heavy fines and/or immediate loss of permission to operate). The point is that the law should choose an approach that works with the new context.

And? They still drive 10% better than the average driver. And I realize that number is just an example, not intended to be accurate, but I still feel like I should point out that, statistically, it's too low.

The fact that the self-driving cars will all concentrate their worst behaviors in the same regions of the space of all driving conditions doesn't change the fact that, on average, they're quite a bit safer than human drivers. This wouldn't be true if the roads somehow changed so that the problematic-for-self-driving scenarios predominated, but they don't.

So you consider most human drivers too dangerous to be on public roads.

You're taking a binary position (too dangerous to be on public roads), so you should expect people to evaluate your position in a binary way. Your other position, trying to position Waymo safety within the wide continuum of driver safety, is more nuanced.

My position is that if they're statistically safer than average human drivers, which makes them far safer than the worst human drivers on the road, then replacing human-driven cars with self-driving cars makes the roads safer. This is straightforwardly obvious. It doesn't mean the companies shouldn't be held accountable for their failures, and certainly doesn't mean that we shouldn't expect them to to continue working on improvements.

This might work when there is a simple, easy search that can verify a fact. But that's often not the case. In my experience most cases of hallucination are cases where the LLM needs a fact mid-response, and the fact check requires both a non-trivial query and complex evaluation of the response data, sometimes involving judgement calls. When that happens, the LLM just gets lazy and goes with its guess rather than doing the check.

I'm speaking in the context of advanced models, mind, not the kind of thing that was available in 2022, nor the kind of thing that is available in Google search's limited-capability model, or open source models. Those are far more prone to hallucination. I won't say that, say, Claude Opus never hallucinates, because it does... but the hallucinations are common only when the models is being pushed hard, operating near the limits of its capacity, which makes it prone to taking shortcuts.

especially since Windows hides extensions by default.
Which every user should switch off the first time he uses the computer.

No idea who had that braindead idea, he should be chained in a dungeon with mold dry bread and muddy water.