"Following a three-hour trial at Wandsworth County Court on 14 May 2026, in which both sides were represented by barristers, the court found in favor of the claimant,"

So... no... AI didn't win a case.

I'm a busy man. I'm also a lazy man. Could someone tell me if this is cheaper or more expensive than a desktop gaming PC with the same stats?

US: 66% (Wall Street's numbers aren't those found in official statistics)
UK: 28.9%
Holland: 23%
Norway: 16%
China: 6%

US' conclusion: The rate is a complete mystery, we've no idea how to decrease it, let's do more of what we're currently doing differently to everyone else.

There is a slight possibility this may be flawed.

Additionally, the way it's phrased, as a "bet," is implicitly skeptical.

There is no question that states are betting on AI.

He's also going to have to pay that money back, have all his assets seized to do so (proceeds of crime), and then the tax man is going to be asking "Hey, you earned £2m, right? Where's the tax on that?"

Now that he's been jailed, they have years to unpick it all, file additional charges, seize everything he owned, even take any "gifts" that he gave to friends and family, and build a case for tax fraud to jail him further.

The real problem with C is that it doesn't have any built-in support for strings. Everyone is forced to fake it with char-arrays, which aren't quite the same thing and require very careful handling. The problem with that is, everyone has their off days, and so everyone who does string-handling in C eventually ends up shipping string-related bugs that introduce security problems.

Bahahahahahaha. You asked for evidence. I presented one example. The datacenter near Truckee California is buying all of Truckee's power. It seems pretty clear they did not build their own power plant. I do not know how to explain that any clearer to you.

It was known what would happen if carbon fiber was used for the hull in a submsersible nearly a decade earlier: See the DeepFlight Challenger: "Based on testing at high pressure, the DeepFlight Challenger was determined to be suitable only for a single dive, not the repeated uses that had been planned as part of Virgin Oceanic service. As such, in 2014, Virgin Oceanic scrapped plans for the five dives project using the DeepFlight Challenger, as originally conceived, putting plans on hold until more suitable technologies are developed"

It wasn't about "toes". People died. You seem to be using the same strawman tactics as Stockton Rush.
Everyone else: "This could kill people."
Rush and you: "Your feelings don't matter."

Except they didn't. They did not even try. The Titan was using their second hull after the first one developed cracks. What did OceanGate do differently to prevent cracks in the second hull? Nothing. They did not change the formulation. They did not change the design. This was the concern voiced by James Cameron. Cameron was excited about the possibility of developing new forms of carbon fiber for submersibles. Until he learned OceanGate was not developing new forms of carbon fiber. They just used existing forms which were known not to be suitable.

I have no idea what you are talking about "departments". People have experimented using carbon fiber for hulls. They were found to crack under multiple dives. That's it.

Then you should know the phrase very well: "Regulations are often written in blood." You seem not to understand it though.

It has seemed to me, for a very long time, that modern AI systems would need to be integrated with standard RDBMS systems for reliable persistant storage of raw information, some sort of no-sql database (memcache or some variant) for persistant storage of associations, some sort of document database for blocks of textual information, a SPARQL system for searching semantically-marked information within the document database, and a more old-fashioned back-propogation NN to provide a store of understanding that the user can directly manipulate.

Probabalistic classifiers are all fine and good, but only for a subset of the tasks needed. The above structure is a very loose, wildly-speculative initial framework. It's almost certain that if you actually tried building an integrated multi-model system, that you'd end up making a lot of changes to this basic idea, but that you'd end up having to implement the same core concepts that are identified in it.

The British government, in a desperate bid to increase profitability, has trademarked Alan Turing himself.

How is ChatGPT supposed to know the difference? Both involve hands and mouths, so clearly it's the same context. :P

From their careful selection of text, they WANTED it to mean something else so badly that they couldn't handle putting in the full text. It's a common blight on today's Internet, where people want other people's writings to mean something other than what was meant by the writer, so carefully select the words they read.

That's the entire point. Trying to solve other people's problems NEVER WORKS. You CANNOT control others into responsible behaviour, but you CAN place them in a position where they will choose to be responsible of their own accord. It is the ONLY way that works. It is the only way that has ever worked. If you look at computer programming, you will see this repeated over and over - well-meaning "hard rules" are ignored, STANDARDS are kept.

You must give them parameters and force them to find their own solution within those.

Big-Brother-NIMBYism: "Spy on those other people*, not ME!"

* Who have less political bribing power