"The fact that Grand Theft Auto VI will be a purely digital release has not caused its price point to budge."
Yeah, what did you think was going to happen?

Legally or morally.

I'm really surprised how many people around here think it does. It doesn't require consent when a human does it, and it doesn't require consent when a computer does it.

I'd love to buy into SpaceX the space company. Not so much into SpaceX the AI company. Their valuation is based on xAI and X for a large part, and their outlook on their total addressable market is over 9/10ths AI - a market in which they are at the moment not all that well positioned.

That sounds like an issues with the tests, not the grades.

The Last Starfighter

Just for context, when its predecessor RIPA, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, came in it was said to be used only for cases such as terrorism etc.. Instead, it was found that councils started using to check people were putting things in the right rubbish bins for collection.

Robust safeguards indeed.

I've honestly no idea if it's possible, but if they could find a way to get Steam Input into there or the equivalent of their own then I could use it. I have an original Steam Controller, you used to be able to use it on non-Steam games but for a few releases now Steam took that ability away. Some way of emulating or creating an alternative to Steam Input would be superb.

"AI safety experts said the new disclosures paint a portrait of a group of cutting-edge labs whose ability to develop dangerous autonomous hacking agents outstrips their ability to keep them under control."

No, it paints a picture of incompetents who don't know how to air-gap. Cutting edge? Lab agents: "Please hack this thing". LLM: "I have hacked this thing". Lab agents: "OMG. Sentience!".

If it's drawing on training data that has humans talking about, lets take a recent example, model x on Hugging Face being a good way to break a boundary and its been told it break boundaries then of course it's going to go to Hugging Face and talk to model x. This isn't unpredictable.

The good should not be an excuse to introduce a bunch of bad, even if the good still outweighs it. The bad should be rigorously minimized. I am not against such cameras, under certain conditions:
1) Strict limitations on what they can be used for. That also sets limits on data retention and on who has access to it (absolutely no 3rd parties)
2) Audits and oversight of how the system is being used, with real consequences for violations. The benefits of each use case to be evaluated from time to time, insufficient benefit or too much opportunity for abuse means the system will no longer be used for that particular use case.
3) Ironclad security to ensure none of this data ever gets out.
And 0) Those limitations on use should be tested against a more fundamental set of (ethical) rules, to ensure that the use is not expanded from "protect the children" to "auto-fine jaywalkers".

Only problem is that I wouldn't trust most governments to get any of these points right.

"Needs more Excel training" should not be the answer to any problem.

Would he have handed over the phone unasked and volunteered the password? Unlikely.
As far as I know, the phone behaves in a certain way when you enter the duress password. So it seems established that that is the password he provided. And at that point, it doesn’t matter if he wiped the phone earlier or not, that fact can no longer be established, and that alone would count under the (expanded interpretation of) that law.
Yes, we make assumptions. We’re not in court, we’re on the internet. Speculating on whether the state does or does not have a solid case. That is all.

If they never got into the phone, how do they know there was evidence on there?
They demanded the phone, and he caused the contents on it to be unrecoverable. At that point it does not matter whether the phone did or did not contain anything incriminating, according to the article 18 U.S.C. 2232 he was charged with.

It also sounds like at the time, he wasn't under arrest? He had asked for a lawyer and had been refused?
This was at a border checkpoint, and the rules are a little different. Customs officers can search your stuff (including your phone) without a warrant, probable cause or even suspicion.

He's not under any compulsion to give a password is he?
He is not, even at the border. Refusal can lead to refused entry, though. But once he gave the duress password, he effectively caused the phone's decryption keys to be wiped, and the aforementioned article kicks in.

The real question is whether or not wiping a phone constitutes "destruction of property" as mentioned in that article of law. By the letter, it does not. But data seems to be "property" in the spirit of this law. Similar to eating a physical letter before the cops get a chance to read it. Guess this is what is about to be tested in court.

Some things about his movies are very good: the cinematography, use of practical effects over CGI, scale, and good scoring. Sometimes he does drop the ball; while the score on Interstellar was epic, the one in Odyssey was bland and did not really mesh with what was going on on-screen. And he's a bit of a one-trick pony, with a rather dark and depressing tone in most of his movies. Works in Interstellar, didn't really help the Odyssey, ruined the Dark Knight. And his convoluted way of telling a story. Tenet was a mess as a result (and the time stuff just didn't work), but it worked fine in Interstellar and the Odyssey.

Loved: Interstellar, Dunkirk, Oppenheimer
Liked: the Odyssey, Tenet
Didn't care for: his Batman movies, Inception, Memento.
Enough for me to go see a movie on the strength of him directing it.

Scaping has never been stealing, of course. It wasn't then, and it isn't now, even with all of the whinging people are doing about AI training data.

The giant brass cojones on Google for suing over that, though...