Eh, I'm sure it'll be fine. No need to be alarmist, like they were about Trump.

Well yeah about that.....

That one actually has some science behind it. Not enough to trust, but some.

Well, it would lose all sensory and motor connections. Sometimes some of them reconnect over a period of several months...but many never do.

I think you die of various neural problems before the reconnection has a chance to get started. (And, of course, you've got a horrendous case of "bubble boy" syndrome for the rest of your life.)

IIUC, there are cells in the body that retain the "true copy". (I.e., they've duplicated VERY few times.) However, they therefore aren't widely distributed. This means no "local process" in most of the body has access to them. It's why women produce only a limited number of ova. S.a. Hayflick limit.

I'm pretty sure that's too simple an answer. There are several lines of evidence that suggest much of aging depends on the blood (at least in mice). Which doesn't imply that there aren't other parts.

(One experiment I read about grafted together the blood steams of a young mouse and an old mouse. The old mouse appeared to get younger.,)

No. I think it's older than LLMs.

"They" is any group exercising unmonitored power. It's not just the Republicans. Democrats to it too. And it's not just political groups. Police is one common example, but that's because lots of people notice it's affecting them.

EVERY center of power needs to be transparent, or this problem will occur. Unfortunately, for some centers of power, transparency itself leads to other problems.

D'Oh!.

There's also a novel that states that the lifeblood of an organism can be used to bring eternal life to certain parasitical creatures (who otherwise can't survive in sunlight). It's probably worth washing the transplanted hearts in holy water before inserting them into the recipient.

The problem conservatism has, and has always had, was that its always been primarily defined by "we oppose the new thing!" sentiments. That might be fine when "the new thing" is actively obnoxious, and neither leftism nor liberalism certainly isn't without some deep flaws, but it doesn't leave itself with a solid set of coherent first principles to build on.

Hence why you get paleoconservatives, who want religious control over life and a heavy government control over culture (aka speech) as well as supporting raising taxes in the form of tariffs and in bed with right-libertarians who want government control over economics to be dismantled and for the govt to get out of peoples lives, despite the fact they agree on *very* little except "liberals bad".

Mmm. Well, I attribute intentionality, if not much situational awareness, to LLMs, but I can see that it could be argued otherwise. (And as for "responsibility", the AI was acting as an agent of the folks who were running it.)

> 2. Democratic voters tend to be more concerned about the environment.

This is technically true but is counterbalanced by the fact rural areas tend to be extremely NIMBY. Unbelievably so. It's hard to get permission to rebuild a dilapidated strip mall, let alone build a data center.

There's a railroad near where I live that was freight only, but wanted to run passenger trains - completely unsubsidized (beyond a tax free loan, and I've never bought the argument "tax free" means subsidized, but that's for another day) - on the same lines. Virtually nothing changed. No impact on the local community. Two trains an hour tying up railroad crossings for a maximum of 20-30 seconds, a minute an hour.

Every fucking "community" North of the Miami-West Palm Beach-Jupiter metropolis raised objections. This was for an existing railroad, with zero impact beyond long sought after safety improvements and quiet zones!

You think rural areas are going to support building actual buildings?

Pffft.

Indeed, I wonder if it'd be easier, even if as you point out more expensive, to build a data center in a city. Just renovate an existing industrial building and hope nobody sees the planning notices.

Actually, much of what has been reported would seem to be in violation of the computer fraud and abuse act. E.g. it often "broke in" using credentials that it had no right to use.

Understanding cost in the external world requires having a good model of the external world. The current LLMs, IIUC, don't have such a model. They have models of interacting words. It's truly amazing that they can do as much with that as they can, but don't over-read it.

OTOH, other AIs *do* have a world model. Most of those aren't full LLMs though. But even those don't really have a good model of other non-electronic entities. Think of self-driving cars, or robots practicing dance routines. These have a world model, but don't really have lots of other info that LLMs typically have. And even those don't have good models of people or dogs, and how they feel when something happens to them. But for LLMs, the real world *is* their electronic sensations. Words are patterns associated with those sensations. But no "body in the world" is involved in the model.

It clearly *was* viewed by another person, because some of the staff at Anthropic viewed it. She may not have intended that it be viewed, but it happened.