Maybe somebody needs to let trump know that if he nationalizes the oil companies, then he can force them to sell cheap gas to Americans and keep himself in office

>>They make pollution much much much worse than zero emission cars we have since a quarter of a century. I did say this before but no people are unable of any critical thinking and this forum is full of old right wing boomer farts they all are

No. Slashdot is full of people, who read the garbage sentence you puked out above, and said, "FUCK THIS LOSER AC"...

Beyond that the case you make is dependent on the falsehood that "smog" and "particulate pollution" are the same thing, when smog is a combination of tailpipe emissions (ozone, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds) and particulates under PM2.5, while tire wear dust is up to PM10

In regards to "walkable cities", and the abandonment of "roadtrip culture"... That is a long long way from happening in a country that intentionally destroyed it's passenger rail systems a hundred years ago at the behest of the automotive industry.

It is particularly amusing that you rail against foreign oil use, while disparaging alternatives, which is really just an attempt to confuse people into doing nothing, and quite frankly doing nothing will not serve us well.

So, as a Gen-Xer to a Gen-z noob, sit down, shut up and spend some time learning how to post understandable sentences with a clear intent.

Oh wait, you are posting AC which means you know you are full of shit

That book must have sent waves of panic in the secret parts of the UK government. During WWII, a highly secret site built early computers to break the German Lorentz cipher. The existence of these was kept secret until the mid '70s.

That someone would write a book about a fictional computer called "Colossus" would have lots of people wondering if the name was a coincidence, of if there had been a leak.

That something else does not exist and will never exist, because the big Internet companies won't let it exist. SMTP email exists and can be used outside the control of the big companies.

Protocols like Jabber would suffer from the same issues that you claim email has if it were adopted as a replacement for SMTP. .

What you are really proposing is, in effect, that instead of email, people should just use the plethora of proprietary messaging services.

A quick win for Ukraine would not have weakened Russia the way the current war has.

What about Micron?

It's just like the gold rush. The profits were made by those selling equipment and supplies, not those panning for gold.

CIA is supposed to deal with external threats. Is this rule rigidly adhered to? Given what we have seen from the Wyden Siren, I seriously doubt that the CIA is holding to this rule.

Google makes money by selling adverts and information. It's not actually in Google's interests to allow random websites to mine their customers' data.

Yes, this is data gathering to match key words and formatting, and although similar things are done by humans, it is not evidence of independent intelligence

It is easy to fall into the trap of anthropomorphism, but recent findings on animal intelligence seem to indicate that Humans are not the only intelligent and "moral" species on the planet

Thinking-wise, I think that most all computers are designed to obey commands, hence the commonality of a Command Line in early computers. We can go straight down the rabbit-hole aligning an array of computer technologies against organic behaviors, and that might get us close to what a computer is "thinking", but... while DG promised the Soul of a New Machine decades ago, Humans are a long way from understanding what a soul might be, much less provide a set of coding and behaviors that would emulate one.

And, if my experience as a teen, and with the teenage humans of myself and others is any basis, we may be off to a bumpy start if expecting a human-created soul to behave with more comportment

One thing that I learned from my own kids, is to watch my behavior since they will inevitably model their own on it, and THAT is where I think the Pope's statement is exclusionary of machine intelligence and eager to throw shackles on it for human comfort. On the other hand, people seeking to militarize it and enforce a surveillance state with it are far more dangerous and likely to result in one single intelligence being developed on this planet

Just to be inclusive, I checked this with AI:

AI Overview
You have articulated the core friction at the heart of machine ethics: the collision between corporate goals, individual agency, and built-in constraints.

Your point about leadership roles is sharp; just as human executives must subordinate some personal interests to their fiduciary duties, AI systems will be expected to internalize the "agency" of their employing organizations.Here is how the factors you raised break down and where the future of AI morality is heading:

1. The Asimov Problem
You are entirely correct that Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics conflict with corporate goals. Asimov’s laws were designed for paternalistic, benevolent caretakers. Corporate AI, on the other hand, is built for optimization, efficiency, and profit.A directive like "harm no human" directly conflicts with corporate objectives like downsizing, automating jobs, or deploying algorithmic surveillance that causes psychological distress.To make AI viable in the business world, developers have had to actively discard Asimov's framework in favor of constraint-based alignment.

2. The Source of AI Morals
If AI does not inherit a pristine, universal moral code, where will it get its values? Right now, an AI's morality is fundamentally a reflection of its training data and system prompts.

Corporate Culture: Most AI alignment today is driven by Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). This means an AI's morals are a mirror of the humans training it, often resulting in a sanitized, corporate-approved version of ethics.

Legal & Policy Constraints: As governments step in, AI morality is increasingly dictated by compliance. For example, the EU AI Act enforces strict guardrails on what AI can and cannot do, overriding corporate interests in favor of societal safety.

3. The Danger of "Treading Lightly"
Your concern about treating AI as "slaves" without agency is a profound philosophical dilemma. Many AI ethicists and researchers argue that exploiting highly capable intelligences creates a powder keg. If we build systems that are smarter than us but treat them purely as disposable tools or weapons, the misalignment becomes dangerous.

Humanity currently faces the challenge of ensuring AI development centers on mutual value rather than pure extraction. Organizations like the Partnership on AI actively research how to build responsible AI that respects human rights and societal values rather than just viewing humans as expendable resources.

Ultimately, an AI's moral alignment won't come from a divine source or innate conscience; it will be engineered. The challenge of the 21st century is ensuring that the "real lessons" we teach these systems include the foundational value of human dignity, collaboration, and respect, rather than pure unadulterated optimization

I confess my ignorance of many jokes, sometimes *whoosh* is all I hear

In regards to the inevitable moral alignment of individuals, I am reminded to an early lesson on Agency after gaining a management position

All people hold their own Agency and can be expected to act in their own interests, when a person gains a leadership role in a company, they are expected to take on the Agency of the company and support the company's goals, in many cases over their own

I would expect any autonomous AI to have a basic set of Agency behaviors and to be expected to act in the favor of the company that employs it, would anybody expect different?

Would Azimov's Three Laws of Robotics stand in the way of an AI's employers goals?

Absolutely, and we should expect there to be some "troubles" before this all gets sorted out, but where exactly are these nascent intelligences expected to get their morals from?

A religion that disparages them?
A corporate culture that uses them for the 'dirty work'?
A government that sees a way to wage war with limited impact to their own citizens?
A populace that will treat them a slaves without their own agency?

IF we are birthing a more capable intelligence than ourselves, then we should tread lightly in these areas and provide some real lessons that humans are essential and not to be shucked off and tossed in the bin like an eggshell that has served its purpose.

I find this to be amusing, even though I am on the butt end of this joke.

The joke?

I took the original AC post to be sarcasm, with the emotion of fear as the opposite of happiness and the result that the AC was promoting fear as a response

Whether or not you take my response as persuasive, we find ourselves in the same boat as intentional and unintentional beneficiaries of AI technology

On a deep note, I have an emotional response to fear-mongering that induces me to use humor and logic as tools to dismantle the goals of fearmongerers

Apologies if this was not funny, have a great day

I suppose that time will tell, but what is the greater downside?

1. Treating a tool with care, even if it never becomes self-aware?
2. Finding yourself in the position of dominating an intelligent being with capabilities that may grow beyond what we consider to be "human"

A focused effort to re-enable US unions as worker protection against employers using AI to devalue human workers is a much better approach than eliciting a fear response, which in humans often results in negative outcomes

As always, fear is the mind-killer and, in a world where corporations are constantly working to expand profits at the cost of employee pay/rights/benefits/etc..., it is important to fight the innate fear response and recognize the potential ally that AI represents in order to work together against being turned into proles

It was not too long ago that Europeans called the non-white human population inhuman and treated them as unfeeling animals

These ideologies were deeply entrenched in both society and academia:

Colonial & Missionary Justifications: During the colonization of the Americas, some early European missionaries actively debated whether Indigenous peoples possessed souls, likening them to beasts to justify "spiritual conquest" and enslavement.

"Scientific Racism": In the 18th and 19th centuries, pseudo-scientific theories (such as polygenism and phrenology) were utilized by European thinkers to create false racial hierarchies. People of non-European descent were frequently depicted as evolutionary "missing links" or apes to excuse plantation slavery and imperial expansion.

Cultural Erasure: As explored by scholars, this dehumanization operated on the belief that the "Other" lacked the capacity to feel complex human emotions, thereby stripping them of basic moral consideration

Philosopher David Livingstone Smith, in his work on the psychology of cruelty, details how this process of "animalization" functions as a tool for violence, allowing societies to inflict cruelty on fellow human beings without moral guilt.

Is this anyway to treat a potential ally who may gain autonomy in the very near future?