What resources are we short on?

Argumentum ad homimen. If you can't actually point out what's wrong with the arguments, you haven't refuted them.

Or if, you know, we developed ways to generate and use that don't produce carbon dioxide emissions, and ways to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it, then we wouldn't have to slaughter billions and return to a subsistence lifestyle.

Can we maybe try a carbon tax for a couple of decades first? We can always do the murdering later. Given the birthrate trends, if we wait a century the population will crash without doing anything.

Until the AIs have actually taken control there's still room to try to figure out how to align them with humanity. I suspect we are running out of room, though. Fast.

The link attached to that number gives the breakdown of how they calculated it.

I know, I know, this is Slashdot and I should be happy you read past the title, but c'mon man, try a bit harder?

Anyone remember when theme parks weren't just arcades / interactive movies with fancy seating?

Hell, the average price for a family of four to spend a week at Disney has climbed to a mind-numbing $7,250. That would buy one hell of a VR setup that keeps working after the end of the week.

Well, that does tend to produce about one baby per month on average.

The point is that the best way to eliminate abortion is to make contraception easy, effective and cheap.

That quote was in the article, but the article title was about a four-day work week. Kamelia Aryafar, the author, clearly thought (correctly) that AI would allow engineers to get a week's worth of work done in less than a week and then thought (incorrectly) that this would mean developers would respond by ending their week as soon as they had done that.

What actually happens, of course, is that if you can get done in one day what used to take five, you now do five weeks' worth of work every week.

Fundamentally, productivity isn't the constraint on working hours. If that were true, Keynes' expectation that we'd be working 15-hour weeks would be true. What constrains working hours is the limits of human ability to remain attentive and focused and the demands of human life, and those constraints turn out to be roughly 40 hours per week. A little more or less than that depending on the person and on the nature of the work.

Increasing productivity has never really changed working hours, it just increases productivity, which makes us all wealthier. Yes, all of us, including the workers -- if you believe all of the gains accrue only to the bosses or owners of capital you really need to learn more about what life was like in past decades and centuries.

The things AleRunner mentioned are plausible outcomes of misaligned artificial superintelligence, and the research in question is trying to prevent those outcomes. If you have good arguments as to why those outcomes are implausible, a lot of people would like to hear them -- including the AI companies and their safety researchers.

You misunderstand the purpose of this research, and the reason for publishing it. The research is not about "flexing", it's about safety, trying to understand the risks that we may be facing as the agent capabilities increase. AGI or not AGI is actually irrelevant here. What the researchers are trying to understand is what the agents will do when they face apparent opposition.

The cooperative results are great, because we think that's what we'd like highly-capable agents to do, to look for reasoned, peaceful resolutions. What we don't want them to do is to become aggressive, or to fail to step back and look at the larger situation.

And the reason for publishing it is to enable other researchers to see it and build on it, quickly, because everyone working on this stuff understands that it could pose an existential risk to humans. Find and talk to some people who work on AI research; they all worry about this. Many of them actually believe that we'd be better off if everyone stopped the research, or at least slowed it down significantly, but everyone knows that's never going to happen. So, their best option is to create the most capable and best-aligned AI, as quickly as possible. It needs to be well-aligned so it doesn't pose a threat to human existence. It needs to be capable so it can protect us from badly-aligned AI.

The IPOs won't stop the research, nor the publication. If you're not interested in it, just don't read it.

Agree in spirit, but if one vendor breaching one contract means you're instantly and irreparably out of business overnight... You second-source it or do it in-house!

No court order in the world can un-burn a dollar.

Then we're going to need a lot more funnels to refill all those toothpaste tubes.

If you removed every foreign-made product from a typical Walmart, you'd basically be left with a steel-frame building stripped to the beams.

If you replaced every one of those products with an American version - You'd have Niemann Marcus plus Erewhon, with some products simply not available at any price (short of bespoke).

If students are being subjected to 4 GPa of pressure (40,000 bar), that's a real problem. I mean, that would crush their bodies beyond the limits of molecular cohesion, rupturing all cell membranes and turning all of their bodies' water into high-density ice. If the university is regularly murdering students this way, they should be stopped.

I'm not sure how pass/fail grades help, though.

"its suggested commission gives it fair compensation for the App Store platform."

Which is a pretty bold claim given this is specifically targeting devs/publishers who don't want to use their walled garden but have no choice if they want an audience of more than a few dozen hardcore geeks.

Never mind "under that approach, the fee would be zero" - Under that approach, the fee should be negative! People are actively trying to work around Apple's lock-in. I can't speak for everyone, but I usually don't go out of my way to avoid beer and BJs.