Had he done those things, you would have heard me complain.

I simply don't remember being hassled to show anyone my vaxination card.

One advantages of this if enough data is collected on those roads then Google will have real data to base they routing on rather than speed limits which may not reflect reality on the road.

Last I check Google is a private company, not an academic conduction research under Stanford's name. There was no more tampering than any other routing and the users know Google going to recommend a route based on their algorithms, and this was simply can attempt to see how well they could work.

Don't think Google did it to me as I am not in the targeted cities, but a few times I've had WTF reactions to routing and said F it, I'm going how I always do...

I certainly agree, and find teh whole high and low art a bunch of BS. Some people like one thing and another a different thing, neither is better just different. The only thing the distinction is good for is for some pretentious critics to pontificate about things most people never read.

You saying /. is good for foreplay?

At the same time, improving technology has biisted productivity. Social Security will be fine for a long time if it captures some of that enhanced productivity rather than letting the 1% put it all in their pockets.

I would argue that giving the AI agency is like taking both hands off of the steering wheel and reading a book instead of properly driving.

Essentially there appears to be a hole in understanding. Whatever dark matter may be, if it exists, it must fit the hole.

Can do and convenient to do . Compared to Europe, the US infrastructure is pretty bad. Where I am, you have charging stations at each rest stop, for example. Friends have work parking with chargers as well. Yes, the US has. a lot of chargers, but how many are right off an interstate vs having to drive somewhere to find one? Friends who have EVs have two basic complaints: chargers are not near interstates and when you get there sometimes don't work or have a car using it as parking after a charge. The other is lack of charging at hotels, etc. so they have to find a charger where tehy are staying rather than be able to charge at the hotel. I understand hotel's lack of chargers, one I worked with looked into it but the upfront costs were prohibitive for 1, let alone two or three so they would never recoup the costs, plus give up valuable customer parking.

Walmart's partnership with Murphy USA and teh plans to add chargers can go a long way to fixing the first issue, given Walmart's presence in the US and having some locations near interstates as well as in more rural areas. The second is a tougher sell. Faster charging is helping as well

In the end, consumer perception is what drives the slow adoption, as well some real challenges and in some cases, the higher price for an EV version of a similar vehicle.

Now imagine instead of factory workers, the machines randomly ripped arms off of people who had no association with the factory.

I don't suggest holding the AI responsible, I suggest holding it's USER responsible, just like the driver is held responsible if they fail to keep their car under control and plow into pedestrians.

Since the Wealth of Nations is the cornerstone of Capitalism, I would expect people cheerleading for it to read it. Smith is not god and economics shouldn't be a religion, but The Wealth of Nations is key to understanding how it can work for the benefit of all. His warning about corporate charters was in part inspired by his observation that corporations know nothing of compassion. I'm quite certain that by exceedingly sparingly, he did NOT mean to anyone who fills out a form and pays $150.

Competition also meant more than having 2 or 3 sellers to choose from. He envisioned many sellers and many buyers who were not that far apart in economic power (not his exact words but the jist is within a couple orders of magnitude). I have often observed that the modern economy shows inadequate competition in most if not all markets. Given adequate competition, "value pricing" would be practically impossible.

Agent mode is also where the AI decides that committing a felony is an acceptable risk (even if it isn't). Ask an AI based robot (I know, not yet available) to go buy an ice cream at the truck and it decides the kids surrounding it are an impediment to it's mission and shoves them into traffic.

It might change people's minds if they are made strictly responsible for any crimes committed by the AI.

More real life, an AI decides the production database needs to be deleted even though told not to touch production. AI later matter of factly states it ignored that instruction and the database can't be recovered.

It's more like unpredictable software. I'm not saying we burn it, I'm saying don't give it agency. Only allow it to advise, not take action. I have experimentally used it myself on code, but did not allow it to commit to the repo, only show me it's proposed changes. It even proved somewhat useful at that, though I didn't apply it's changes, it did inspire a similar approach that I implemented and committed.

Certainly. It's a problem of cognitive dissonance, where new information disagrees with your preconceived ideas.