Which it was.

These cryptocurrency payments can't be used to fund terror and evade sanctions since all the transactions are public on the blockchain! Also, would anyone like to buy a bridge?

Since pertinent information was withheld (that it didn't know), then by your own post you acknowledge it was a lie of omission.

The stupidity of people these days is truly beyond belief. And, yes, get the f off my lawn.

We learned back in the 80s that trying to get a neural net to emphasise what you want is actually very difficult. What it will tend to emphasise are the assumptions that underly the test data, and that's usually a completely different sort of fiction.

But was that figure provided by AI?

Even if not, we all know that 793% of all statistics are invented.

If something is inaccurately presented as being the truth, then it is a lie of omission because it is dishonest about the fact that the information isn't actually known.

Gemini is exceptionally bad, as LLMs go. I really have no idea why it is so dreadful, even compared to other LLMs. It isn't context window. and it doesn't seem to be training material either.

Cyber Implications have been noted. Mondas security is to be Cyber Vibed until we have Cyber Security capable of defeating The Doctor.

When I test the different AI systems, Google's AI system loses track of complex problems incredibly quickly. It's great on simple stuff, but for complex stuff, it's useless.

Unfortunately.... advice, overviews, etc, are very very complex problems indeed, which means that you're hitting the weakspot of their system.

I've designed a few machines - some rather more insane than others - in meticulous detail using AI. What I have not done, so far, is get an engineer to review the designs to see if any of them can be turned into something that would be usable. My suspicion is that a few might be made workable, but that has to be verified.

Having said that, producing the design probably took a significant amount of compute power and a significant amount of water. If I'd fermented that same quantity of water and provided wine to an engineering team that cost the same as the computing resources consumed, I'd probably have better designs.But, that too, is unverified. As before, it's perfectly verifiable, it just hasn't been so far.

If an engineer looks at the design and dies laughing, then I'm probably liable for funeral costs but at least there would be absolutely no question as to how good AI is at challenging engineering concepts. On the other hand, if they pause and say that there's actually a neat idea in a few of the concepts, then it becomes a question of how much of that was ideas I put in and how much is stuff the AI actually put together. Again, though, we'd have a metric.

That, to me, is the crux. It's all fine and well arguing over whether AI is any good or not (and, tbh, I would say that my feeling is that you're absolutely right), but this should be definitively measured and quantified, not assumed. There may be far better benchmarks than the designs I have - I'm good but I'm not one of the greats, so the odds of someone coming up with better measures seems high. But we're not seeing those, we're just seeing toy tests by journalists and that's not a good measure of real-world usability.

If no such benchmark values actually appear, then I think it's fair to argue that it's because nobody believes any AI out there is going to do well at them.

(I can tell you now, Gemini won't. Gemini is next to useless -- but on the Other Side.)

This means you shoud NOT, under any circumstance, run Claude at 88mph. Unless you really want to.

Lets be honest, if there were anything worth stealing in Germany, the British would already have done it.

Jokes aside again, criminals, even wanted criminals are by still protected by law. The law doesn't stop applying to people when they break it. The definition of an "outlaw" is someone who is expressly denied the protection of the law, so by definition an outlaw can't be wanted (hence the old trope about the wild west outlaw being wanted dead or alive is completely wrong), in effect an outlaw can't seek the protection of the law for crimes committed against them meaning another person can rob or murder them without consequence.

How is this any different to the FBI's most wanted list?

Clue By Four: it isn't.

Or the US seeking Osama Bin Laden, all criminals they have/had little chance of getting so they release the info in the hopes of someone coming forward with info leading to a capture. It also limits where they can travel to as it's a public notice that they're wanted.

This is the exact opposite of a doxxing.

Jokes aside, I think the point is this isn't really a doxxing. Doxxing is an unauthorised release of personal information (usually with the intent to cause harm), this is really the opposite as it's a state releasing the name of a wanted criminal.

So $150 million to train the two models?

Seems like a reasonable capital cost if it worked and was legal.

Charge subscriptions of $10,000 year to keep something up to date. You wouldn't need a profound amount of customers to cover it.