Bots and other bad actors thrive in free (as in beer) environments, for reasons that should be obvious. If we want to do anything meaningful about them, sites will need a nominal but real fee to use.

It's not what anyone wanted, but "free" was always inevitably going to lead to the Internet becoming a dump. The free ride is over.

What are the chances that the robot was being controlled by a human and not AI? There have been a lot of "demos" of AI robots that it turns out is a guy in another room controlling it. If I had to bet money, that is what was happening here as well.

That's not the reason. Time slows down (from the perspective of a far away observer) as objects approach the event horizon. It doesn't matter if the black hole is small or big...it slows down by the same amount, the only question is where. The event horizon has a larger radius when it's big, and it has a smaller radius when it's small.

In both cases, from the perspective of a far away observer NOTHING ever crosses the event horizon, whether the black hole is small or big. It slows down as it approaches that point, and at the event horizon itself, time stops completely, so it will freeze there for eternity. You won't be able to see that, instead you see the light that it emits being redshifted as it has to climb the black hole's gravity well, eventually becoming too red-shifted to be detected, and it's effectively black.

In both cases, from the perspective of the object falling in, time is passing, and it crosses the event horizon without even knowing that it's there. Well, for a very large black hole, it doesn't notice anything, for a very small black hole, tidal effects cause spaghettification before crossing the event horizon, so it's going to notice something and have a bad time. But it won't be the event horizon, it's just the difference in the force of gravity across the length of the object.

So, the reason it slows down consumption is not related to the time dilation. Using your terms, "it's almost" as physicists spend their lives studying these things, and therefore if it seems obvious to the the layman reading a slashdot article, they've already considered it and either accepted, dismissed it, or tested it.

I read about this and think about the stupid woman who sued McDonald's and won because she ordered a cup of HOT coffee at the drive thru and then stuck between her legs to hold it. Something happened and she squeezed her legs coffee came out and she got burned a little. She sued McDonalds because the HOT cup didn't warn her HOT coffee is HOT. You can't protect people from their own stupidity.

Everyone has issues and social issues are part of them. Just going to school you see that clear enough. You learn about yourself and things and situations to avoid. I see this as one. I'm someone who being kind of a loner will spend more time online (mainly YT) than I should, but I realize it and when I notice it will scold myself and cut back trying to actual doing more than watching YT's or reading lame posts. Today online is it's own cure there is so many whiners, bots, and AI post it a big time to cut back on online. I'm old AF and miss the old days of USENET.

Not to mention that the first thing any gamer does when they get a game is turn all that artistic crap off, both to get a better framerate, but also to make the game easier to see. The fewer "artistic effects" on the screen, the easier it is to see what's happening. The idea that gamers care about "artistic intent" is hilarious if you've ever seen any gamer community.

This shows the real issue with AI. It isn't in the AI itself, but the people using it. I don't have an issue with them using AI to try and identify the suspect when they are having a hard time doing so. But you can't just take what AI says and assume it is correct and act on it. AI is a tool and needs to be used as such. When it gives you something, it is up to the people to actually check out what it says and follow up on it. People are using AI as if it is the answer but it is just a tool to try and get to the real answer and that is the part that people are ignoring.

It is called the Department of War. Hilariously enough the rest of the Fortune article uses the correct name everywhere else, it's only the quoted sentence that misnames it.

I stopped listening to talk radio in it's early days because I reallized what an a55hole it was making me. Plus a lot going on in my personal life I needed to focus on. I didn't notice how much of my life that hate radio was starting to take up until I noticed it in my best friend. So started back listening to music in my car and on the radio at night, and even parted ways with my best friend because it turned him into a different person. My life became so much better with music back in my life full time. Today I do watch video podcasts, don't like audio only podcasts. There are so many to choose from and I mainly listen to music podcast that will get into current events now and then. I also watch a little of the video radio shows because with internet I can pickup shows from all over the country and they are short capsules to the full shows. I was watching the full lenght podcast and they were getting longer and longer so even those I just watch the edited short of. I also don't get into any of these with friends so when with them we just talk like old friends. I think people let these show over take them without realizing it and they become addicted to them. There is enough stuff going on just reading the news so why pile on more, get back to enjoying the other things in life you used to do.

That is an accidental attitude. I don't even understand what you're trying to imply here.

The default assumption, by literally everyone, is that if it's in an ad, it's not a statement to be trusted. Ads are *by nature* untrustworthy, they are a biased view meant to get you to be interested in the product. It's up to the person with the wallet to then do actual research, and they are literally the only person to blame if they trust the ad. If the ads were telling you the limitation of the product, then the person to blame would be the marketing team that created the ad, they should be fired for incompentence.

If the government is depending on ads to evaluate the capabilities of the AI, that's where you should focus the outrage. If the ads were in any way saying that Claude isn't capable of doing anything including making you breakfast and turning you into a stud that all women want, then your outrage should be with the terrible marketing team that decided that their competition deserves market share.

Ok. The founding fathers didn't want the President of the United States to have ANY POWERS to make any decisions inside the country. The goal was for the President to merely be the administrative head to enforce laws Congress pass, and its only check on Congress was the veto power. The President also served as a Commander in Chief and had the power to sign treaties with foreign governments, but those powers were meant to be EXTREMELY limited, as they gave only Congress the power to declare war, and Congress was required to ratify any treaties with foreign governments.

If the President has the power to make ANY DECISIONS WHATSOEVER, instead of enforcing decisions those in congress have made, then it's not the role the founding fathers wanted.

They also wanted the executive to be very neutral. Many of them were against the concept of political parties, but that turned out to be inevitable. However, up until the 12th amendment, the vice-president was the runner up, whoever got the second-most votes by the electoral college. So, under that system, Hillary would have been Trump's VP his first term, and Harris would have been Trump's VP his second term. Because they wanted to ensure a check even within the executive, with someone with different views being the one to break ties in the senate.

There's a reason I phrased it "appearance of working" - you're assuming that enough people will be able to tell the difference between "working right" and "not working right." As long as it looks to be working properly for the majority of use cases, that's good enough. For most of these tasks, it isn't a simple binary between "doesn't work" and "does work," there's a whole spectrum.

In fact, I would argue this ultimately makes AI more dangerous, because it does a very good job of appearing to work while failing in ways a human doesn't.

Sure, probably, assuming it fails badly enough, which it might. But you're assuming "short term" won't be years, and that it fails in ways that make it clear profit was lost. It's pretty easy to assume that if a computer made a mistake, a human would have as well, especially if you're the one who put the computer in charge.

But that's the thing: AI doesn't have to work particularly well to displace hundreds of thousands of white collar jobs. It just has to create the appearance of working, while being cheaper.

It's already there in places where, even at minimum wage, it wouldn't be cost-effective to have a person perform the task, but an AI can do it cheaply enough. Even if it doesn't do it particularly well. That it can do it at all is enough.

Jobs are going to be given to AI, even if the AI does a worse job of it, simply because it's cheaper. The assumption will be that AIs will only ever get cheaper and more productive. The same assumption isn't being made of humans.

You are putting WAY to much thought into this. Yes, it was not a fancy double blind study, but there are 4 separate files and 4 things they could be assigned to. Anyone with 2 brain cells would listen and assign what they though was the best quality to the original. Then to the one run through the audio cable. Then the banana followed by mud. They fact that at minimum the mud and banana didn't stand out says what you need to know about the quality.

Before my time in computers I was in auiio recording engineer and similar work. So many times rookie engineers and musicians come in wanting to use our vintage microphone on cranked guitar amp and drums and we'd say no. They'd whine so we would say okay we'll do a blindfold test you can tell the different you can use the vintage mic's. They never won. Same with musicians on overpriced speaker and guitar cords, they could never tell the difference. We did tests on cables the super high priced and the good cables the difference was not audible by ear and barely different with scopes. Thsoe high end cables are a waste of money.

The military is right. As in, the military is saying Anthropic's tools are the best there are, and they don't want to change. Pete Hegseth is wrong, and he's throwing a hissy fit that, as usual, goes against what the people who now have to follow his orders, but are way more qualified than he is, actually want to do.

Incorrect. It's important that the decision be the *best decision*. Speed is a factor, but it's not the most important one. I can give you a system that gives you decisions faster than any AI, just have it choose randomly instead of actually analyzing any data, and it will be very fast!

What Anthropic is concerned about is that they are not confident their AI system can make decisions like what to shoot at with a low enough error rate to justify doing so. Anthropic is understandably concerned about the blowback to *them* when they become the scapegoat for all our drones engaging in friendly fire and killing a bunch of Americans, because Hegseth decided to trust a system that if you ask it, "the carwash is only 100m from my house, should I drive or walk there to wash my car" will say that you should walk there, because it's so close. You really want *that* system making the decision on who to kill?

I'm a pragmatist. I *know* eventually humans will be out of the loop in such decisions. We're very, very, VERY far from that. We know it, the military knows it, ALL the AI vendors, out of which Anthropic currently has the best product, know this. Pete Hegseth is apparently too incompetent to know this.

The second part of the equation, AI is actually pretty good at. It's a great tool for sifting through massive data, so it's great in helping to spy against Americans. No patriot should want that, however. Anthropic is ok with it being used to spy on other countries, but understandably does not want that use to spy on our own citizens. If you're against that, fuck you, you have no right to call yourself an American, you don't have the very basic values that this country stands for.