"No. That is a rare skillset."

It's less rare now than ever before, and becoming less rare thanks to howtos and cheap equipment.

The last I saw, 50% of peer-reviewed papers can't be reproduced. So a 40-60% funding cut is probably about right.

Anthropic's recent test of having a AI run a small business suggests that CEOs are safe this year.

Whether it's a "work in progress" or "useful tool" depends on which AI you're talking about, and what task you're considering. Many of them are performing tasks that used to require highly trained experts. Others are doing things where a high error rate is a reasonable tradeoff for a "cheap and fast turn-around". But it's definitely true that for lots of tasks even the best are, at best, a "work in progress. So don't use it for those jobs.

OTOH, figuring out which jobs it can or can't do is a "at this point in time for this system" kind of thing. It's probably best to be relatively conservative. But not to depend on "today's results" being good next month.

Most of those things are either experimental, or only useful in a highly structured environment.

AI is coming, but the current publicly available crop (outside specialty tasks) makes lots of mistakes. So it's only useful in places where those mistakes can be tolerated. Maybe 6 months from now. I rather trust Derek Lowe's analysis of where biochemical AI is currently...and his analysis is "it needs better data!".

One shouldn't blindly trust news stories. There are always slanted. Sometimes you can figure the slant, but even so that markedly increases the size of the error bars.

OTOH, AI *is* changing rapidly. I don't think a linear model is valid, except as a "lower bound". Some folks have pointed to work that China has claimed as "building the technology leading to a fast takeoff". Naturally details aren't available, only general statements. "Distributed training over a large dataset" and "running on a assembly of heterogeneous computers" can mean all sorts of things, but it MIGHT be something impressive (i.e. super-exponential). Or it might not. Most US companies are being relatively close-mouthed about their technologies, and usually only talking (at least publicly) about their capitalization.

As we have seen, the 2a nuts mostly don't do shit. The only time he's allegedly been attacked is one of the most obvious false flag operations of all time. I wish I were shocked to see so many on this site fall for it, but I already knew there were loads of idiots here.

This EXACTLY. They are getting NOTHING. In fact they are losing everything, and owning themselves HARDER than "the libs." And they're asking for it to happen more.

Apparently the bill just passed, so it looks like they are getting it.

You never worked in a shop, I take it.

Not given how bad you are at explaining it, no.

Science is the study of, if you are religious, HOW God hung it up there. In no way does that fundamentally conflict with the idea of religion.. However, it can easily conflict with some religions when they are stupid enough to try to describe science even though that's not what they are for.

If you are a maggot, yes, except you only read scientific journals to find out what to be mad about because you don't understand it.

I bought a $300 laptop almost two years ago, it still does all the things I want it to do, and quickly too. It's got a 2C4T AMD and I was able to upgrade the RAM to 8GB with a perfectly matching used module from eBay for $15. (IME they have to match exactly for modern integrated video to work reliably.) It's no game console, but video encode and decode work well.

Companies change. OTOH, perhaps those that continue to have jobs at Ford will continue to be able to buy a Ford.

None of those things you listed are open to the general public, so there is no reason not to use a self signed certificate.

I think that either you don't understand AI, or you don't understand how creativity works in people. Probably both.

Current AIs don't have a good selection filter for their creativity. This is a real weakness, that I expect can only be remedied by real world experience. But they *are* creative in the same sense that people are. It's just that a lot of what they create is garbage (although *different* garbage than what most people create).