It is very cheap to find low priority low severity bugs. That is, if you want to find a way to change someone's smart thermostat to display Farenheit when all the numbers are actually Celsius, yeah you can do that for cheap.

If you want to find a critical severity, critical priority bug that lets you empty people's bank accounts and then over-writes the movie "The Fast and the Furious" on the bank's current database forcing them to revert to the last backup not connected to the system, well that is another story.

The AI bug finder is not particularly helpful to most criminals. It is a relatively expensive way to find lots of small bugs.

But if a nation state decides to invest a few 100 million dollars, it can find enough of these things to plan a cyber assault around them.

That is the real fear from AI bug finding.

You know the ones they advertised in old paper comics?
They sold for $1.00 (1970's money) and were drawn with red circles on the 'lenses'.

(Note they were really just pin hole cardboard with a feather over the hole, creating the illusion of lines on whatever you looked at.)

I said molested not rape. There were two women that complained about inappropriate actions. One of them claimed rape, the other said that neither were raped.

Later on the one that claimed rape admitted she had lied about the rape. No one ever denied that drunk people at a college part were strippers were hired did stupid shit.

The quite truth is that reality is a lot more complicated than simple stories.

I absolutely hate it when some asshole simplifies a complex situation to make their side look like the good guys. When you do that, it turns you into the bad guy because you are lying as much as your opponent.

The jobs they get are things like:

Social Worker
Guidance Counselor
Lobbyists
HR in companies that were sued for sexist behavior.

There are more than 20 times positions as graduates.
However, those jobs are mostly relatively poor paying.

From a financial position, I would advise people to go to some mechanics trade school instead. Elevator repair and airplane maintainer are great jobs you can get without a college degree and pay more.

I would definitely watch MrBeast attempting to teach college students how to do his job.

Especially if they decided to make it a 'unscripted' show where they picked a bunch of idiots and advised them to act even stupider than they were.

There was a period of time where we had unexamined DNA evidence - when we knew to collect it but either did not trust it or it was too expensive to do a full analysis of it.

Later on it got cheaper and we understood it enough to trust it more (it is not 100% trustworthy - not how we use it).

They found that 95% of the guilty cases where we had unexamined DNA evidence were in fact guilty. 5% of the time, a person that could not have provided that DNA was convicted.

Which works out to one in 20 convicted people being innocent.

As for the idea that a third found innocent being guilty - we do not find people innocent, we find them "not guilty". And that is pretty rare - prosecutors have a good idea of whether they can win the case and do not waste their time if they cannot. More than 90% of people that go to trial for a serious crime are convicted of something - if not all things.

I find that to be a much better estimate of around 1 in 20 convicts being innocent and a similar amount of those fond not guilty to be guilty. To me, those odds are reasonable effective. I am not outraged at how bad our legal system is, I find it acceptable.

That said:
1) We can always make it better - the bond system for example is vile and evil, keeping innocent poor people in jail without trial, while at the same time letting wealthy criminals get out of jail and commit more crimes.

2) Given the knowledge that about 5% of convicts are innocent, the death penalty is totally misused. If we can't fix it, it should be abolished. I am not against it in theory, but our current use is vile. Prosecutors tend to use it based on the victim and the horror of the crime - without even considering they might have the wrong guy. Kill a black male prostitute, you get jail. Kill a cop or a pretty blond girl, you get the death penalty. They even use it on felony murder cases where your partner killed someone but you did not.

In particular, I would never allow the death penalty to be used when evidence is 'missing',

In the US, about 4.7 million people (4,7000,000) got a college degree in 2024.
Of those people, less than 10,000 got one in gender studies. (less than 0.22%). Of those 10,000, more than 1,300 (13%) came from one university:
University of Missouri-Columbia

This is not a 'United States" problem really. What appears to be happening is that in a few rare locations (Missouri being one of them) there are a bunch of sexist a-holes. These a-holes create massive problems for a small subset of people, who then go to college and find out they are not the problem, but the a-holes are. So they heal themselves by getting a degree in Gender Studies, then return home to fight those a-holes.

The fact it takes a degree to deal with these shmucks is sad.

But the issue is not a bunch of liberal idiots doing stupid things in college, but a bunch of a-holes making life so difficult for normal people that we had to create a college class just to deal with them.

The Duke Lacross accusation was made the same year, not 30 years later.

The problem with the Duke case was that DNA found the men innocent and the prosecutor HID that evidence. The prosecutor did not tell anyone this and ended up going to jail for one day for this 'mistake'.

No one denies the women were molested, they just arrested the wrong people.

The problem is not the time line and YES, asking people why they did not make the accusation earlier is almost always victim shaming. People that are raped often are ashamed and do not report it for decades.

Finally, almost all states have a statue of limitations for rape of less than 10 years. The notable exceptions are Connecticut and New Hampshire.

That is, do they have a social media account with at least 50,000 followers?

I can easily see the AI bubble crashing.

But I do not expect the 'excess compute supply' to be a problem. That is very likely to be the main asset that people buy up. The price will drop for it as compared to now, but not by much.

Memory prices however I expect to crater. Once that compute supply is shifted away from making AI slop to more productive uses, we will have a glut of memory chips combined with excess production.

The main fall will be the idiots that 'invested' in AI companies. The AI founders will still come away in the 1%, but most of that money will have been striped away from the investors.

Talking about my insult that was a direct quote of the original poster is not reasonable. When a shmuck insults others, it is OK to use his own insult back at him.

You are educated about economics but lacking knowledge of politics and history. The money is the RESULT of politics, not the cause of the situation. It is true that modern nuclear plants are cheaper than the old recycling ones. I implied it in my post.

This is because the government decided to spend billions of dollars researching non-proliferation nuclear power plants, rather than the Recycling ones. We did not want to spread nuclear power plants that made so very very much plutonium.

Nuclear recycling started in the 1950 and lasted for more than 1/2 a century. You need to look at the British
Magnox nuclear reactors - used from 1950s to 2016. About a dozen were made - this is not a small failed project, it was a minor success.

Yes it was expensive power but it still made electricity as well as nuclear bombs. Yes, they recycled the spent fuel turning it into plutonium for bombs and more uranium for fuel.

This was all done by the UK whose economy was about 1/6 of the US. They spent less than 1/6 the money the US did on improving it. Surprise surprise, after 60 years, the US power plants had improved greatly while the UK version had improved much less.

As I said earlier, the US considered this idea and said no, not only because of the economics, but because of the plutonium. They were more scared of nuclear bombs proliferating than they were concerned about recycling nuclear fuel.

Once again, I am not saying the nuclear recycling was a 'good idea'. In addition the recycling model was more expensive, as you said. I do not disagree with you about those facts.

I am saying that it was not just about the economics, other fears mattered very much.