I spend all my time grinding and doing actual work, when what I obviously ought to be doing is applying for grants so I can research the blindingly obvious.

That there is no evidence to support it does not mean it cannot be true. But it should inform your assessment of probabilities.

Bingo. That is an absolutely correct factually true statement.
What you left out is that the job of the individual is to correctly assign probabilities.

Odd, I thought he was working for Putin.

Insulting people doesn't help convince them.

Be careful. It has not been absolutely proven that vaccines never cause XXX. It probably can't be. It's just that there is no valid evidence that vaccines do cause autism. (At least that I know of.)

The original claim was a deliberate fraud, but many people believed it, and their part in it was not a "deliberate fraud", at least not on their part. But they *did* believe it because they wanted to, in the face of contrary evidence.

China has a history of not caring about people outside it's borders. This long predates the CCP.

Yes, exactly.

If you want to automate something the automation has to not only be faster per unit task or output, but it also has to make up for the extra time of checking or re-doing something when the automated way failed. To do that, you usually need to constrain the parts of a problem where the automated approach will succeed nearly always and where failures can be identified and mitigated quickly. That requires building a bunch of process oversight stuff, which in turn requires a big investment in instrumenting the current and future process to identify the exceptions and handle them correctly before failures move downstream and become much hard to address.
Additionally, work outputs that have a lot of unpredictability, or require persuasion or consensus (such as defining what problem to solve), or situations where there's no pre-defined correct future state, only a series of choices and murky outcomes, are just hard to automate period.

LLMs not only have regular failures, they have highly unpredictable failures. Yet they're being sold as though than can automate anything.

The reason the "agentic OS" stuff is will fail is the same reason that we didn't automate away our daily work using VBScript - the automation will be clunkier and more annoying than just doing the steps on our own.

Bullshit. I live in the western US and have regularly driven through some of the least-populated areas of the country, but I've never seen an area you can go 500 miles without encountering any infrastructure. You might be able to accomplish it if you take careful note of where the truck stops are and go out of your way to avoid them, but on any realistic route you'll encounter truck stops -- if not towns -- at least every 150 miles.

As for charging infrastructure, if you stay on the interstates I don't think there's anywhere in the country you can go more than 100 miles without finding a Tesla Supercharger. Those aren't designed for truck charging, but this demonstrates that building out the infrastructure isn't that hard.

It depends on the precise definition. But teleportation of sizeable objects is probably impossible. In the use of the term in quantum experiments it means something like "moving the state of one particle to the state of another without determining what the state is that you moved". And it's "moved" rather than communicating because the residual state has been changed. I.e., for a macroscopic analogy, if I "communicate" something to you, it doesn't make me forget it, but if I teleport (say a book) to you, I no longer have it.

Yeah, the word was chosen because it sounded catchy, but it *does* describe a legitimate effect that has no macroscopic counterpart.

They certainly seem to have completely missed Article I. You know, the part that says that the legislature makes the laws? Even if you think restricting AI regulation to the federal government is a good idea, the right way to do it isn't with an executive order to set up a DOJ task force aimed at litigating state AI regulations out of existence based on complex legal theories about interstate commerce. The right way is for Congress to pass a law barring states from regulating AI. This is simpler, cheaper and should invoke public debate about the issue, which is how things are supposed to be done in constitutional republics.

I don't even think Trump is taking this route because he and his advisors don't believe they have the votes for it. I think they're doing it this way because they don't even consider governing through legislation rather than through executive power. Granted that Congress is fairly dysfunctional, but they actually can and do make laws... and the way to fix the dysfunction is to work the system.

I thought you were going to say that Linus is not a skyscraperator! Don't change the analogy mid-thread please, it's confusing!

That is the nature of bubbles. It's not all lemmings who jump the cliff. It's also hunters who think they are smart enough to stop just before the cliff edge. And then there's hunters who think the other hunters will fall anyway but they don't want to miss out and will be able to stop in time. The ones who stay home don't bring back any food.

That's a completely backwards view of the GDPR. It's easy to comply if you build your site from scratch. However, if you insist on using noncompliant infrastructure solutions to build your site, then of course you'll have headaches and software rewrites and annoying popup hacks. That's on you (or your boss). Alternatively, make the right design choices initially and you'll be fine.