Aside from these devices all being very rare, how does this force any of them to be landfilled? It isn't like you won't be able to download or use an older version of Linux.

Bus mouses were not that common, but we're a thing when I was growing up. But the phasing out of the 486 support is really what I have to object to. It was cutting edge when I was young, so if it is now so rare and obsolete that support isn't justified then I must be old and that can't be right. I don't care for Linux's refusal to indulge my denial of the passage of time.

Two things can be simultaneously true: 1) Many of the AI proponents and CEOs exaggerate and overhype the power and usefulness of their software. 2) These systems are powerful and continue to get more powerful.

That's a valid point. I cannot in that sense rule out that something like that is happening here. But even then, the default shouldn't be to dismiss what Mozilla is saying here simply because it is possible that they might have some hidden incentive. We cannot just dismiss evidence we don't like by imagining that someone might have an incentive to lie about it when we don't have any evidence of that lie. (That's aside from the fact that Mozilla is not the only organization at this point pretty impressed by Claude Mythos.)

They have some of their own AI systems, but they are a small part of what they are doing. But if you prefer, consider then the just weaker statement that Mozilla has no incentive to hype Claude Mythos. Are we in agreement there?

Do you want to explain why you think I've demonstrated that?

271, and yes that's a lot. And yes, it does have a relation to what the bugs were and what their impact was. Mozilla, who has no incentive here to hype Mythos or any other AI software https://blog.mozilla.org/en/privacy-security/ai-security-zero-day-vulnerabilities/ said that any one bug would have been a "red-alert in 2025."

I don't know what a weak mind is. We don't live in the Star Wars universe with Sam Altman or Dario Amodei is able to just wave their hand and say "These are not the bugs you are looking for." If by "weak" you mean intelligence, I'll free admit I'm not the smartest Slashdotter, but none of this is relying onon my own evaluation. oAll of these have been examined by the actual Mozilla experts who are highly concerned. It appears that you are confusing the ability to "know a bit more" with "assuming what I want to be true which would make me have to not change my mind at all." These are not the same thing.

There's another element here worth highlighting: By continuing to insist no matter what, that nothing these systems can do is remotely impressive or substantially improving, you are essentially removing yourself from the serious discussion of how to deal with these systems, how to grapple with what they can do, how we regulate them and a host of other issues. In order for those discussions to be useful, we absolutely need the input of people who are not enamored of the systems. But that also requires that those people, like yourself, acknowledge that these systems have genuine capability. I've seen you have conversations about issues that aren't AI on Slashdot, and I can see you can make valid points and sometimes have good ideas. You are a bright person; to apply that intelligence and careful thinking to AI, you need to be open to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you might be wrong here.

A system that finds hundreds of bugs, which were not found by humans or found by standard fuzzing, and that's "infantile" how exactly? You can if you want disagree with their claim that this will result in somehow finding all the bugs. (That's probably unlikely for a whole host of reasons.) But even you should be able to recognize the significant nature of the system being able to find this many bugs.

Thank you for completely avoiding and missing the point. Reread the comment. If you prefer imagine a world where you gamble. Or instead imagine a friend who was could make either one of these bets. There's one side of the bet where if they took it, you'd likely consider them to be an absolute idiot and the other one where you'd see them as functionally getting free money. So the idea that you cannot estimate a probability for an event that is only going to happen once is just wrong.

Spotted the frequentist. More serious comment: If someone offered you an even bet on one side for $10 that next year Jesus's Second Coming will occur, I'm pretty sure you would take the side of it not happening, even though that's a single event. If they made the same offer for first contact with intelligent aliens, you would do the same. And I can list many similar examples. So you are able to make estimates about probabilities for events which will only occur once, based on your evidence and world models.

The real purpose might be deniability. If Human Zuckerberg is an ass (which probably happens pretty regularly) or suggests something legally questionable (which probably sometimes happens) or suggests something unethical (which I'm sure sometimes happens) then it gets pinned back on him. But if the AI does any of that and there's pushback then meat-Zuckerberg can go and blame the AI.

The judge in question is Michael Liburdi, and unlike many Trump judicial appointees, he was highly qualified. From the Wikipedia article you linked to:

This isn't one of the Trump appointees that needs to be deeply beholden to Trump. It is very tempting to think that a judicial decision one doesn't like has to be due to the judge's politics or connections, but it doesn't look like that is what is going on here.

OpenAI is not the only major player right now. Google and Anthropic in the US, and to a lesser extent Meta/Facebook. OpenAI is just the largest. And there are a lot of Chinese models now also. And this isn't the only thing that has been said negatively about OpenAI or Sam Altman. There was one may recall the entire mess where they transitioned from being a non-profit to a for-profit and all the drama from that that largely revolved around Altman. When there's a bubble it is very tough to tell what finally is going to cause it to pop, and there will always look like there are a lot of reasonable things where one expects this will be the final thing that starts the inevitable cascade. There's an old rule about wanting to short sell stocks "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." Also, it is important to recognize that tech bubbles can pop but the fundamental industry can stay. The internet bubble of the late 1990s popped, but we ended having more internet usage now than even the hype would have predicted. Similarly, the rail bubble of the laye 1860s/early 1870s popped, devastating the US economy, but the rail industry survived and largely continued to grow despite that.

I agree with the last part in parethenses. Do you have citations for the rest?

Not for lack of trying. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/judge-blocks-rfk-jr-from-scaling-back-childhood-vaccine-recommendations.

Bwah? The article I linked to is on Harvard's news site. It is not just about Harvard. As that article notes there's been about 500 million dollars of contracts canceled. Note that even if that were all Harvard (which it isn't) that would be a sizable chunk even in their endowment. And this has on top of that had a major chilling effect causing corporations to stop doing mRNA treatment research in general.

The US does a lot less preventative medicine than peer European countries, so lower vaccination rates harm a lot more here. And aside from changing the vaccine schedules, they've done a lot else which I mentioned. Like cancelling all the mRNA research https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/slashing-of-funding-for-mrna-vaccine-development-raises-concern/ which is going to have massive long-term damaging consequences.

Minor note: Carter did not have solar cells in the sense of electrical production on the White House. Carter had solar water heating panels but they were not "solar cells" but just direct solar heating for water. See https://projectsolar.com/blogs/solar/white-house-solar-panels. Solar cells at the time were still very expensive and not very efficient.