Artificial Intelligence Act needs to follow its primary architect and be utterly removed in such a way that brings great shame on any of its defenders.

For those not in the know, it led to its principal creator, everyone's favorite French fascist grandma Thierry Breton get removed from his Commissar post by a German with... French support.

It was an utterly unprecedented scandal within EU, which is generally built on careful balance of Franco-German relations. For French to actually allow Germans to throw out a French Commissioner is an anathema to this balancing act.

And yet it was done, because this demented freak decided to become the embodiment of "America invents, China builds, Europe regulates" by pre-emptively regulating AI into non-existence in EU. And that was so bad, that even Jupiterian president of the Fifth Republic realized that someone who made a fuck up this bad cannot represent his nation within the Commission. And so he gave his blessing for von der Leyen to throw the gimp out, something she was trying to do for years with no success because of aforementioned balancing act.

Market is the most accurate mechanism for measuring created value that we have. We have tried many other mechanisms, and none of them come even close in accuracy.

This excuse doesn't survive even most marginal scrutiny, such as observing that growth of HR has been massive in countries where employee lawsuits cannot legally generate large enough fines/restitution payments to justify the cost of HR.

True. That claim peaks at around 80-90IQ. People above that generally understand that Chinese are indeed a communist nation.

I misunderstood your meaning, as I clearly outlined in my opening post that I'm talking about specific regulatory difference between US and EU.

Most of EU, you cannot own what you are referring to as "mineral rights". State reserves those for itself. That means that if someone is allowed to explore for minerals, you as a land owner is completely and utterly fucked. Someone else gets all the profits, while you get all the downsides of having a mine on your land.

That means that all locals who are invested in land will oppose any mineral exploration and extraction.

As your link points out, opposite is true for US. "Mineral rights" are mostly privately held, and typically by land owners until they choose to separate those from surface use rights and sell mineral rights to someone else. This means that land owner can lease or sell right to minerals and get a significant share of profits of any extracted fracked oil or gas revenue.

Hence massive popular opposition of land owners to fracking in EU, and wide scale support of land owners for it in US.

Me? No. That claim belongs to geologists.

But Europe is very poor in oil and natgas with Dutch reserves running out sometime this decade at current rate, North Sea being slowly choked out for being expensive (and UK's net zero madness). This leaves only fairly expensive Norway with it's offshore platforms and Russians as the only large scale sources for oil and gas.

In this light, even the five layers or so we have in our shale, while far less viable than North American dozen or so are still infinitely more than "nothing". It would mean EU wouldn't need to have all the pain with trying to rid itself of Russian hydrocarbons, while getting pressured by everyone from Libyans to Qataris because they have to import oil and natgas from somewhere, and US is just too far away for costs to not be in the "key heavy industries cannot be competitive with these prices".

I have no idea how you would go about having "both systems active". Developers that want minimal customer freedom would leave because of GoG component, while developers that want maximum customer freedom would leave because of Epic's policies.

The outcome would be a store with no clients.

That's not what lions do. Not even remotely, because lion tribe system is completely different from human one. There, the core unit is group of females. Males simply fight each other for having the sole male slot within this structure.

There are no human tribes where core unit is a group of females, and there's only one male. Because that's not survivable in human condition, as human females are poor hunters and territorial defenders, unlike female lions.

It most certainly does. I did say "adequately trained".

Citizens United.

'Nuff said.

Yes, our closest surviving relative great apes do.

We diverged from them a very long time as well. There are no close relatives alive to us left, because we won that evolutionary competition. Unless you would prefer to start splitting homo sapiens into the currently existing three mainline genetically trees of homo sapiens development we have today (Pygmies, Sub-Saharans and everyone else).

None of our groups practice this.

P.S. "I can escape my nature" is indeed a delusion of Divinity of Man. It is a delusion because it assumes that your mind is more than you. There's even a very clear religious root of this delusion that can be defined, that being the Christianity developing dogma of Trinity and dogma of "Holy Spirit". A spark of God within each Man. Other religions that developed differently either make no such distinction in the first place, or are focused on battle between mind as merely one small part of self trying to gain control over self that is much greater than mind (i.e. Buddhism).

Ever since then, Western cultures that developed under this dogma assume that mind is something that is separate and greater than the rest of the body. "Base nature" is one of the more popular modern ways of addressing this "rest of the body". It's a fundamentalist religious assumption that led to a lot of problems. For example Western medicine long assumed that bacteria are only harmful because if you view everything as separate rather than as a harmonious hole that it actually is, everything that doesn't immediately neatly slot into "definable by mind" is assumed to be a part of "outside of divinity". And we couldn't even begin to address obesity until someone sufficiently disconnected from Christianity based mainline Western culture realized that the most "base nature" one could think of, gut bacteria actually significantly participate in "the mind".

I.e. not only is mind not separate from the body, it is merely a small part of co-evolved cognition apparatus that exists in humans mostly formed by beings that aren't not only definitionally not human, but aren't even multi-cellular.

You can rise above it far less than you can rise controlling your liver function with your mind.

Important factor: "most talent" typically means the opposite of "best talent".

In AI like in most things, it's the top talent that actually matters the most. Normal distribution is top 20% does more than 80%. More recently distribution shifted to 5/95 in many fields because modern technologies increasingly empower top performers to be even more performant.

And with AI, it's shaping to be empowering something like top 0.01% to be as performant as the rest in fields where outcome is sufficiently multiplicative. I.e. small amount of people can make a product that serves billions. Good examples of relevant fields are software where one excellent dev can deliver a product that works for billions with minimal need for even support staff, vs something like non-automatable (at this point) food production, where a top tier picker can only pick maybe a couple of times more fruit than average. Notably this is one of the fields in which AI is changing things.

It is a game changer, just not the way it's being used. The accellerating advances of robotics are almost all from the use of AI trained in specific tasks. ChatGPT couldn't operate a robot, but neither could the AI that runs Boston Robotics' Spot converse with you.

It's akin to the cops' Thin Blue Line, the judge is also a lawyer, he doesn't want to upset his coworkers.

If it fixed the leak? Why not? Especially if it enabled them to fix it faster and/or cheaper.

Just FYI, AI is in use in the construction trades already, most people aren't aware of that. For your example a draftsman can feed the plans of a building into an adequately trained system and map out the most efficient routing for plumbing and cabling. AI is operating excavators, scheduling contractors, driving inspection robots, recognizing bad concrete pours from drone images, and the list keeps growing. In China there are entire mines being worked by only robots driven by AI, and AI powers their "lights out" factories.

I don't see any issue with an AI creating legal citations, **IF** it's adequately trained specifically on legal documents with the guard rails in place to only use cases that actually exist and which actually pertain to the topic in question. Obviously ChatGPT and its kin are not up to that task, but they're trained in everything under the sun, and the old rule of GIGO goes into effect. A legal AI doesn't need to know anything about running an excavator, how to feed a goldfish, or the Kardashian sluts' sex lives, including crap like that into your training is going to produce garbage output.