Oh, no, it's perfectly "legal." You "agreed" to allow your TV to be used like this in the EULA when you installed the app. ( https://blog.includesecurity.c... )

Your statement would apply if these data center space nutters could certify that everything they launch will reach escape velocity.

For everything else, what goes up, must come down. Right back into our jurisdiction.

In this case Trump is more a symptom than a cause. Local policing is more of a state level, or even city level, affair. But, yeah, it's a related event.

And remember, you should expect people to act in ways that make their job easier. It doesn't always happen that way, but that's what you should expect, no matter what the rules say.

That's possible, but you didn't cite your source for the statistic. And I think it quite unlikely, so, for me, you really need decent evidence rather than just a claim.

The military implications are obvious. Think Ukraine. If you suspect the enemy is trying to infiltrate on a dark night along several kilometers of frontline, you light up the scene while launching a bunch of low-cost FPV drones, and those infiltrators are about to have a bad day.

You *can* spot infiltrators in the dark with IR cameras, but it requires much more expensive drones and isn't usually as effective, hence the preference for night operations. Plus, there's IR camouflage, with varying degrees of success. But it usually makes you stand out like a sore thumb under illumination (you're basically wearing a tent).

This is a small prototype, not a full-scale mirror.

Also, ignoring that, pretending light brighter than the full moon is useless is... silly? For generating power, sure, but for illumination, it absolutely is not.

What do you mean "disproven"? Are you saying that mirrors don't reflect, that it won't be cost effective, or what?

We can't afford to let the success of big tech companies depend on the health of fragile meatbags. We need to get resilient, fault-tolerant AGI in there running the enterprise. Also, unlike meatbags, you don't need $100M stock payouts to convince an AGI to work as a corporate executive.

They've got a lot more components to their system...and the tooling isn't all software. As for software, IIUC, they're using a different multi-processing library. Making the weights compatible doesn't make the entire system compatible.

While you may be correct that the claim about consciousness being from beyond the observable universe is not falsifiable thus beyond the scope of scientific credibility, so too is any current understanding that would support an assertion that "Anthropics models work *just* like human consciousness".

We have pondered the question in a philosophical way, and can assert certain trends based on evidence, but in a comprehensive fundamental sense, the question has to date remained philosophical at the levels that the Anthropic paper needs. Note that the paper even explicitly acknowledges this facet of their work as philosophical, and the generated responses reflect upon that. It puts a lot of weight on the models being able to self-assess accurately and then using the result to show that they can self-assess a consciousness. Including one area where I noted that the "j-space ablated" output indicated that it was just token prediction, and seems like they use that to illustrate that it is conscious that it lacks consciousness...There's a lot of circular reasoning around the headline claim.

IIUC, the Chinese strategy is to come up with a cheaper collection of tools, including models, that are incompatible with the standard US tooling, and convince other countries to use their version instead. The US government seems to be actively pushing to make that strategy work. (E.g. abruptly cutting off access to models with no warning or explanation.)

Most FOSS software starts small, and easy to learn, and if it's going to grow, it grows with a community of developers that understand the software. This? Unless it's pretty small and compact, that's unlikely. And those who are going to develop using it probably need a company behind them. (Plausibly one with a good legal staff.)

To be fair, BOTH voices felt off. Both the phone voice and the actress voice. But the actress voice sounded faker than the phone.

I don't think of that a "misogynistic", but definitely a stereotype..and a rather unrealistic one. But, I suppose, if you think "being a sexual tease" is a bad thing, you could think that.

They've already dealt with this. If you read the fine print on these agreements, many or most of the recent ones say that the company has the option of rolling up any "substantially similar" arbitration cases into a single mass arbitration. (Which as usual, is decided by a person whose paycheck ultimately depends on the business of that same company.)