I suppose your question is rhetorical, but the answer is...

Congress tells the White House what to do, but almost never says *how* to do it. For example, congress told the White House to start protecting food safety, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FDC) Act of 1938, with a mandate to "protect and promote public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, the nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation".

Thus, the FDA has a specified mandate, but the White House has considerable leeway in how to implement that mandate. There have been amendments to the instructions over the years, but it's basically "keep the people safe" from perceived risks.

The FDA mandate applies when an AI is acting in anything related to a medical capacity, and the FTC can step in when "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" happen in the AI sphere, and the "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act" covers various misuse of the computers of other people.

That last bit, CFAA, sounds like it might apply in this case.

The executive branch also has sweeping "emergency" powers if it believes something is or might be an immediate threat. It can also create new powers "by default" when they believe there is sufficient danger - such as when the EPA was created by Richard Nixon because Congress did not pass a resolution of disapproval within 60 days. (It was later given funding by congress, which effectively validated its existence.)

Congress is notoriously slow to act, and hesitant to act until a real threat is demonstrated. In the meantime, the executive branch can respond quickly to individual events with individual actions (which is what this sounds like), giving Congress time to consider the issue.

All of this is as it should be.

You may not like the current administration, but responding to potential threats is one of its functions.

I heard there are twelve Golden Flock cameras out there, each containing a coupon for a free blowjob, redeemable anywhere, but no one knows where these twelve are. You just have to search them all.

Ballcoin will be a thing

'That barrel you're scraping probably has a hole in the bottom by now.'

I'll try to remember that one and use it elsewhere

> I suspect that's often true, but certainly not universal.

My observation is that it's quite often true. If our observations differ, so be it.

The Soviets appeared to concede at that point. They cancelled their manned lunar program.

Took Apollo technology to make that broom fly.

Slightly off topic, but people don't hire on merit. The merit claim is cockypot. Merit gets your foot in the interview door, but social factors are what decides after that. I've been on hiring committees. One of the questions posed to the committee was, "Which candidate would you feel most comfortable working with for 40+ hours a week?" Let that question sink in.

Of course the candidate with a similar socioeconomic profile as your own would be preferred: somebody who likes the same food, watches the same movies and sports, worships the same deity, etc. It's not direct discrimination, but has discrimination as an end result.

Prove the study is flawed or STFU. Gut guesses are a dime a dozen.

If Mathematicians are made redundant by AI, then a source of VERY intelligent people will be available to use to benefit the rest of us - or at least our corporate masters. This might prove to be a good thing...

Prompt: "Hunt down and clean up Slashdot dupes before they coagulate and turn into human eating monsters. Low scorers have to watch goatse for 2 minutes before reactivating their account."

Quick question: Is she wrong?

The previous post made a point, which you totally sidestepped.

I have no opinion on Sabing Hossenfelder either way, but I get the impression that physics has largely stalled over the last few decades.

So... I'm just wondering, Is she wrong?

"I'm writing a book on Jeffrey Dahmer...

Bigly Testosterone!