Comment Re:sounds like the right way to do it (Score 2) 65
The general expectation in industry is that the number of bugs must be finite and, even though every change might introduce new ones, as the AI models find new ones and they get fixed the total number of yet to be be found bugs will come down.
I would just like to remind everyone that this only holds if the number of new bugs introduced per bug fix is less than 1. In the somewhat unlikely and fully incompetent case of more than that, it tends toward infinity.
Comment Re:The problem (Score 1) 136
Comment Re:Supplements (Score 2) 130
Just eat a spoonful of potassium, swallow a couple of zinc washers, and chew on a copper wire and you'll be good to go.
Good news then, now that food isn’t being inspected you’ll be doing that whether you want to or not!
Comment The problem (Score 2) 136
Further, the claims of what has really been achieved are far over blown, for example the Navier-Stokes problem claims (by supposed experts) to have shown the model false by proving infinities can exist from a steady state in finite time and thus has undermined a century of engineering showing it to be based on a poorly performing model that’s “disproven”. But if you actually examine how a forcing function can spiral energy inward and concentrate it faster than viscosity can dissipate, its slight and thus for any model that held conventionally the model only blows up far beneath the size of a proton, something the model has never been applicable to in over a century of use. Zooming out to the minimum size of collections of molecules, the model is unchanged, nothing has been shown false, and the model is just as accurate as it’s ever been for engineering purposes. It’s an esoteric math question that’s been resolved, and not even completely as it’s not a broad proof that’s the only counter example.
Comment Re: On the plus side ... (Score 1) 16
If you are a regular pleb, yes. You would be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
If you are a billionaire running a "frontier lab", no.
This^
Ive already heard legal blogs talking about how AI agents can’t have mens rea. An agent can’t purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently do anything because those simply don’t apply. It’s not even straightforward in the majority of cases to show how they even _can_ commit physical acts. So all crime is now legal for them.
Comment Re:Your EV is gonna be dead anyway after the bomb (Score 1) 196
Comment Re:It doesnâ(TM)t have to be GOOD radio. (Score 3, Interesting) 196
Comment Re:You need this for an emergency (Score 1) 196
Comment Re:again, don't blame the computer (Score 1) 63
We are talking about a ship, top speed maybe approaching 30mph but more realistically closer to 20mph, two or three orders of magnitude slower with days to make a decision since satellite coverage can easily detect handoffs. Not only that, but in the above cases the arrival corresponds to Armageddon whereas nuclear materials (not even warheads, but raw materials) on delivery is weeks minimum to years plausibly to develop a warhead and long range threat that you need to make a decision on in weeks.
You demonstrated the fundamental lack of understanding that underscores why having capable humans in the loop matters instead of slop brain basking in the warmth and comfort of the left half of a Dunning Kruger graph blank stare carrying out what the stupid word spewing box commands.
Comment Re:again, don't blame the computer (Score 4, Insightful) 63
The system worked...why is this a story?
Because according to the source, and plausibly so, ships and aircraft were mobilized and nearly intercepted the ship. It was called off at the last second when the final check(s) showed it false. This is like saying the first response nuclear missile system worked during the Stanislav Petrov (1983), Norwegian Rocket Incident (1995), NORAD Training Tape (1979), and Faulty Computer Chip (1980) events nearly kicking off WWIII but were caught at the last second by a human. I’m not going to have very long to say I told you so when the giant push to remove all humans from everything happens so that last check before the end of the world just doesn’t exist.
Comment Re:SI: Subpar Intelligence (Score 1) 63
I think SI is a fine title because despite all tricks it can do, it still fails in basic ways that even idiots don't. As such, Subpar Intelligence is the title it has earned. I don't need anyone telling me about hypothetical futures because I'm talking about right-damn-now.
Yep, only difference is I’m calling it Stupor Intelligence because of how blindly some people slurp the slop.
Comment Re:Caning ? (Score 1) 189
you get caned.
Wow, that list of preferences and interests is a lot more detailed than I would have guessed.
It’s a natural outcome of a toe may toe fettish.
Comment Re:AI companies must be liable for their "agents" (Score 2) 61
If you have a dangerous dog and your dog kills a child. You go to trial and likely jail because it's your dog and you did not control it.
This is closer to training a large breed to ring fight non stop while injecting it with muscle growth hormones, then leaving it unattended with some shoddily staked 2’ high chicken wire as its enclosure. Then it escapes and kills children.