It's a catch-22, and always has been.

Dictatorships are tyrannical no matter how intelligent the leaders are. And given the power structure they have, there is absolutely no way to ensure that the dictator even cares about the people at all.

On the other hand, most people are idiots. They are extremely vulnerable to fake facts and other forms of manipulation, so their voting power isn't actually a form of political power held by the people so much as held by the people who manipulate the people.

What we actually have in America is an oligarchy that pretends to be a constitutional republic. Yes, we vote, but regardless of how many people participate the small group of rich people get everything they want. This is the inescapable result of the general stupidity of the majority of people (not to mention general laziness, apathy, and the very real and pressing need to spend their time earning a living instead of studying up and staying on top of politics).

So we get ruled by elites no matter what we do. The blow is softened a bit in a democracy due to regular rotation of the publicly-visible power-holders, but even then, most of the power is held by un-elected, un-appointed, rich people who only care about the country inasmuch as they have to in order to protect their own wealth.

It does not need to be intelligent in order to qualify as "artificial intelligence." In this context, the word "artificial" means "fake." Like "artificial leather" which is not actually leather, or "artificial crab meat" which is not actually crab meat.

The phrase has been around a long time in the domain of computer science and has always been used to mean "that which imitates intelligence (without actually being intelligent)."

You are not alone in your distaste for the word use here. But you are also greatly outnumbered. The English language doesn't have a final authority on what words mean beyond popular use. And in popular use, the phrase "artificial intelligence" is a very broad term that refers to a wide variety of ways that computers do things that seem intelligent (even though they actually aren't).

So, your pleas for people to stop using the phrase this way fall on deaf ears. That ship sailed long ago. This is what the phrase means, and will continue to mean, no matter how much you disapprove.

At some point all of these streaming services will realize they're behaving like the music industry of the early 2000s, with much the same consequences.

Not any time soon, mind you. They aren't that intelligent.

Consider that maybe they won't work at Starbucks, a scarier thought given the lowered standards in some institutions.

What always puzzled me about Intel's...more peripheral...activities is that they seemed to fall into a weird, unhelpful, gap between 'doing some VC with the Xeon money; rather than just parking it in investments one notch riskier than savings accounts' and 'strategic additions to the core product'; which normally meant that the non-core stuff had limited synergies with intel systems; and had the risks associated with being a relatively minor program at a big company with a more profitable division; and thus subject to being coopted or killed at any time.

Seemed to happen both with internal projects and with acquisitions. Intel buys Altera because, um, FPGAs are cool and useful and it will 'accelerate innovation' if Intel is putting the PCIe-connected FPGA on the CPU's PCIe root complex rather than a 3rd party vendor doing it? Or something? Even at the tech demo level I'm not sure we even saw a single instance of an FPGA being put on the same package as a CPU(despite 'foveros' also being the advanced-packaging hotness that Intel assured us would make gluing IP blocks together easy and awesome). They just sort of bought them and churned them without any apparent integration. No 'FPGA with big fuck-off memory controller or PCIe root we borrowed from a xeon' type part. No 'Intel QuickAssist Technology now includes programmable FPGA blocks on select parts' CPUs or NICs. Just sort of Intel sells Altera stuff now.

On the network side, Intel just kind of did nothing with and then killed off both the internal Omni-path(good thing it didn't turn out that having an HPC focused interconnect you could run straight from your compute die would have been handy in the future...luckily NVlink never amounted to much...) and the stuff they bought from Barefoot; and at this point barely seems to ship NICs without fairly serious issues. I'm not even counting Lantiq; which they seem to have basically just spent 5 years passing on to Maxlinear with minimal effect; unless that one was somehow related to that period where they sold cable modem chipsets that really sucked. It's honestly downright weird how bad the news seems to be for anything that intel dabbles in that isn't the core business.

Dude, learn about punctuation if you want to be understood.

I get not needing it or wanting it. But why is hitting Netflix in the pocket book on your list of benefits?

Not delivering on schedule is absolutely a symptom; it's just a somewhat diagnostically tricky one since the failure can come from several directions; and 'success' can be generated by gaming the system in several places, as well as by successful execution.

In the 'ideal' case things mostly happening on schedule is a good sign because it means both that the people doing the doing are productive and reliable and the people trying to plan have a decent sense(whether personally, or by knowing what they don't know and where they can get an honest assessment and doing so) of how long things are going to take; whether there's something useful that can be added or whether forcing some mythical man-month on the people already working on it would just be a burden; keeping an eye on whether there's anything in the critical path that is going to disrupt a bunch of other projects, and so on.

If you start losing your grip on the schedule, that fact alone doesn't tell you whether your execution is dysfunctional or your planners are delusional, or some combination of the two; but it's not a good sign. Unhelpfully, the relationship between how visibly the gantt charts are perturbed and how big a problem there is is non-obvious(a company whose execution is robust but whose planners live in a world of vibes-based theatre and one whose execution is dysfunctional and crumbling and whose planners are reusing estimates from the time before the rot set in might blow a roughly equal number of deadlines; despite one having mostly a fluff problem and one probably being in terminal decline); but it's never a good sign.

When people discover that a whole class of incoming folks can't find their way to anything where the path isn't a straight line, we might see a surge in reverse ageism.

That wasn't *all* I said, but it is apparently as far as you read. But let's stay there for now. You apparently disagree with this, whnich means that you think that LLMs are the only kind of AI that there is, and that language models can be trained to do things like design rocket engines.

Given that I encountered the first Mac in 1984 I think my statement still holds.

A real Mac has a 68k processor! ;)

It's been, what, a week, and they got 6000 jets through maintenance during a very busy holiday travel season?

That speaks to fantastic logistics. There are anonymous folks out there who did a great job and deserve a ridiculously generous Christmas Bonus. :gallant bow:

Which is why it is a priority for Republicans to lock in long term bans on regulation of AI. Damaging society has become their highest priority, almost as if they are controlled by our primary adversary.

You can't seriously , actually believe this....can you????

If so, you might wanna quit talking to the bot(s)....go outside and get some fresh air....log off awhile, get away from the TV and your echo chamber....