It's more a case of the fox being in charge of the chicken coop; or bank robbers gaining control of the bank.

The job of the press in a democracy is to hold officials up to scrutiny.

Doing it in software means you can move CPUs from one machine to another based on the time of day. Your CI infrastructure can lose some resources from its UI at night and make another server for nightly builds when most of your users are away, without either having a VM layer in between or needing the builds to happen on a kernel configured with the features needed by the UI.

The logic is economic autarky -- the belief that we're always better off having complete political sovereignty over every part of our supply chains than having to depend on imports for anything.

This is likely also behind Trump's trade war with Canada. His demands with Canada aren't about discirimatory tariffs -- those were negotiated away with NAFTA then re-negotiated in his first term. His demands are now infringe on Canadian sovereignty, to give US control of Canada's external trade policy, and even on its internal markets (e.g., the use of French in Canadian internal commerce). Symbolically, that's why he wants to rename Lake Ontario to "Lake America". HIs establishment of US control over the Venezuelan oil industry is his greatest foreign policy achievement -- although it's not clear he understands the legal limits on what he can do with their money.

There's a foreign and military policy angle to this too: Taiwan is absolutely critical to the US economy, so we are absolutely committed to defend them if China invades. Semiconductor autarky would mean it's not our problem.

The problem with autarky is that even if it's a good idea (which economists don't believe), you can't conjure it into existence overnight. It will take many years, possibly decades for the US to replace the Taiwan's semiconductor industry. In effect, the administration is proposing to inflict the very damage on the US economy that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would inflict.

And, once the US has voluntarily self-inflicted that damage, China would be free to invade Taiwan.

The real issue is that the packaging process used to create vaccines in quantity is a process where you mix a tank of mRNA with a tank of other stuff and get a tank of lipid nanoparticles. Getting different mRNA in each dose means you only get one patient's vaccine per time you start and stop the machine. There's also a step where one copy of mRNA is used to make a macroscopic quantity of copies in a bioreactor that needs to be flushed in between different sequences, but can just run when making enough of the same thing for a large population. It's likely that the cost for each different sequence will come down if it's worth designing and building equipment that switches every dose, but there's an intermediate time between proving that the treatment is useful and being able to provide it in a cost-effective way.

It's clearly all the superfans who hear that there's a new album and immediately drive into their local record store. (Rather than doing the sensible, calm thing and entering the store on foot.)

Investors are chasing a company that achieves some kind of AI singularity. Let's set aside the fact that there's no reason to believe there is anything but diminishing marginal returns by making marginal refinements to current frontier models. Let's imagine someone hits the jackpot and gets, not even AGI, but a system that's as far ahead of today's frontier model are ahead of 2020's GPT 2.0 in performance.

Globally AI revenues are 150 billion, against a cumulative burn rate of 450 billion. A model that is a generation ahead of others would almost certainly capture the lion's share of that revenue.

If AGI magically appears as a Sam Altman has promised investors it will, a hundred million is way too low. Add, maybe, another zero to the revenues.

Conservatively, a safer assumption is that frontier models will get marginally better based on refinements in training and reinforcement and the other bits and bobs that go into these systems. The nobody is winning the lion's share of anything, at least overnight. But you have to define "safe". By "safe" I mean unlikely to lose money. But some investors are clearly defining "safe" as "having the greatest chance of owning a piece of the biggest thing ever."

I'm not following this super-closely, but if Anthropic is pursuing adding multi-step model based reasoning to their system, that could be the basis of a generational leap in capability. But if that is an approach that looks like it has a chance of working, then their competitors are no doubt pursuing the same thing. In that case you'd expect the revenue pie to grow as the scope of model utilty increases, but that growth to be split among several competitors. This could credibly result in a revenue stream for some of them that is as big as the entire industry's revenue stream today. But there's going to be hell to pay on the data center impacts end of things.

With their COVID vaccine, the first time was the highest dose they knew would have only acceptable side effects, and they reduced it for the next iteration when they saw how effective it was. (If you remember the myocarditis rare side effect, that was only seen with the first version.) I would guess that the next step is backing off on the dosage to reduce the side effects now that they have results on effectiveness, which will also let them make a better case for younger people at less risk from the flu.

Destroying the originals in no way cancels out the fact that they made an unauthorized copies. They're two separate things. Copyright is literally and only about the right to copy. Buying a book doesn't give you that right; it only makes you the legal owner of that hard copy.

Some important background for this is that, around 1900, mathematics got formalized to the point that there is a standard for whether a proof is valid or not that doesn't depend on humans thinking about it, just doing a bit calculation following an algorithm. However, it is such a large calculation that nobody wrote complete formal proofs or verified all of the steps (since they'd be spending huge amounts of time on obvious parts, and not the novel aspects). Then, in the past 20 years, people have made computer systems that work on complete formal proofs while showing you the interesting parts, with the rest in macros, and check these proofs automatically. This means that finding proofs has the form of things like what AlphaZero is good at: something to check if moves are legal and a win condition. However, only a relatively small portion of mathematical research has been put into Lean so far, and that doesn't include the sorts of obscure results that often turn out to be useful in other problems. So the current wave is using LLMs to find results in the literature that might be relevant and producing formal versions of them, game AI to put them together, and deterministic validation to check each of these as it goes along and then people can see at the end that the calculation shows the proof is valid. The only part requiring mathematicians is checking that what the proof proves is what they understood the open question to be.

If he is an American citizen, he is not compelled to give up his passcode.

The Fifth Amendment starts with "No person ..." not "No citizen ..."

Bernie Sanders has proposed LLMs are using the collective knowledge of humanity so the people should own 50% of each LLM company.

The problem with ownership is that you also have to absorb the losses in addition to profiting from the gains. I don't see what problem ownership solves. We already have a way to get a slice of the pie for successful corporations: corporate income tax.

Eric S. Raymond wrote "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", which inspired Mozilla to make their browser open source. For some reason, this means they name their extended support releases after him.

If you brake, that which was traveling forward wants to keep traveling forward. If anything, I'd expect the outer edges of the door to fly forward, i.e., more open.

Even if you were right, it probably would work only if the door is very open, but not ajar.

Yet traditional cab drivers don't monitor their passengers to make sure they are awake and alert and not reporting any distress the entire trip

Of course not. That's not the scenario. The scenario is waking the driver upon reaching the destination. A taxi driver could physically shake the person.

I can't currently imagine what that would be to get me to go along with the idea you have any claim against them.

Somebody, somewhere can.

The point you're missing is that they don't have to get to an emergency room since an ambulance, unlike an autonomous vehicle, has trained medical personnel on board that can start administering procedures immediately upon arrival.

Also, FYI, despite what you may think, ambulances DO have to follow the speed limit.

It varies by jurisdiction, but no, they don't. At least in California, they can legally exceed the speed limit:

(b) Speed Restriction. In no event shall an ambulance driver exceed a speed of 15 miles per hour while disobeying any official traffic control stop sign or stop signal.

So that means that while going through, say, a red light, not only can they legally go through it, but then can, at most, exceed the speed limit by 15 MPH while doing it.

While NOT "disobeying any official traffic control stop sign or stop signal," they can generally exceed the speed limit even more (but, again, it varies by jurisdiction).

Here is the relevant law for Hollywood, FL:

No ambulance shall exceed the speed of 40 miles per hour except in cases of extreme emergency.

Which means they can exceed the speed limit by 39 MPH for "non-extreme" emergencies.

In New York State:

1104 Authorized Emergency Vehicles - (b) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may: 3. Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as he does not endanger life or property;

No specific maximum speed is mentioned.