That there is no evidence to support it does not mean it cannot be true. But it should inform your assessment of probabilities.

Bingo. That is an absolutely correct factually true statement.
What you left out is that the job of the individual is to correctly assign probabilities.

Odd, I thought he was working for Putin.

Insulting people doesn't help convince them.

Be careful. It has not been absolutely proven that vaccines never cause XXX. It probably can't be. It's just that there is no valid evidence that vaccines do cause autism. (At least that I know of.)

The original claim was a deliberate fraud, but many people believed it, and their part in it was not a "deliberate fraud", at least not on their part. But they *did* believe it because they wanted to, in the face of contrary evidence.

What I typically do is leave in the no-name AAA alkaline batteries that the remote came with, and it works for a couple of years until I move on to newer gear.

Then after I've left it idle for 15 years, I'll come back and open the remote to discover that the batteries have leaked all over the inside and destroyed it.

China has a history of not caring about people outside it's borders. This long predates the CCP.

The thing about adopting evidence-based policy is that you also need to review and if necessary change policy when more evidence becomes available. The kind of situation you're describing would surely qualify.

If that CEO thinks the behaviors of the LLMs are "super smart", then I really wonder about his level of intelligence...

IT's certainly novel and different and can handle sorts of things that were formerly essentially out of reach of computers, but they are very much not "smart".

Processing that is dumb but with more human-like flexibility can certainly be useful, but don't expect people to be in awe of some super intelligence when they deal with something that seems to get basic things incorrect, asserts such incorrect things confidently, and doubles down on the same mistakes after being steered toward admitting the mistakes by interaction. I know, I also described how executives work too, but most of us aren't convinced that executives have human intelligence either.

It depends on the precise definition. But teleportation of sizeable objects is probably impossible. In the use of the term in quantum experiments it means something like "moving the state of one particle to the state of another without determining what the state is that you moved". And it's "moved" rather than communicating because the residual state has been changed. I.e., for a macroscopic analogy, if I "communicate" something to you, it doesn't make me forget it, but if I teleport (say a book) to you, I no longer have it.

Yeah, the word was chosen because it sounded catchy, but it *does* describe a legitimate effect that has no macroscopic counterpart.

"It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of a son of a bitch or another." --Malcolm Reynolds

(Ironically applies well to Joss Whedon himself. Kind of wonder if one of the show writers was thinking about Joss when they wrote that...)

The only single-source point of failure is me.

If it was a reasonable balance of risk and payback, then they could get a private loan like everybody else.

I rather suspect that it means "valid under the WIPO" treaty.