Same argument, govt subsidies for buggy whips. The govt needs to set these rules for the benefit of the people, not to support companies trying to keep selling obsolete and uncompetitive legacy technology products.

No, the worst part about ads is that they exist at all in a form that intentionally disrupts your attention.

That fundamental issue is then exacerbated by the current societal tolerance for lies, and you get intrusive advertisements that are deeply misleading.

So, why are you tolerating current advertising at all when there are tools that effectively eliminate it?

The assumption is that using your phone / infotainment system to search for, possibly purchase, and play a new release is an attention-demanding task that takes substantial time. The consensus above is that Spotify's UI, in particular, is poor, and thus requires extra interaction, and thus attention off the road, exacerbating the problem. We know that attending to a phone, even briefly, is mutually exclusive to attending to the road. That alone is an explanatory mechanism for the increase in fatalities.

But then we augment that supposition by the additional effects that new music is also a distraction, albeit much lower grade than operating a phone. It might be a lesser effect, but listening to a song or three is also expected to span longer time than interacting with a phone, so might have substantial cumulative impact.

An additional effect that I have not seen mentioned above is the expectation that the demographic listening to top releases is likely to skew younger, and thus contains drivers with less experience than the population. Less experienced drivers are at far greater risk of accidents of any sort, and are more sensitive to distraction.

And, as a parent of teenagers, the solution is clear to me: do not frelling use your phone when driving, period.

This is something folks are working on for 6g -- integrated sensing and communication.
https://www.qualcomm.com/resea...
Basically, hey, you've got all these devices pumping out signals everywhere at all kinds of wavelengths; if you receive and process them you can pretty much build a 3-D scene.

Investors are chasing a company that achieves some kind of AI singularity. Let's set aside the fact that there's no reason to believe there is anything but diminishing marginal returns by making marginal refinements to current frontier models. Let's imagine someone hits the jackpot and gets, not even AGI, but a system that's as far ahead of today's frontier model are ahead of 2020's GPT 2.0 in performance.

Globally AI revenues are 150 billion, against a cumulative burn rate of 450 billion. A model that is a generation ahead of others would almost certainly capture the lion's share of that revenue.

If AGI magically appears as a Sam Altman has promised investors it will, a hundred million is way too low. Add, maybe, another zero to the revenues.

Conservatively, a safer assumption is that frontier models will get marginally better based on refinements in training and reinforcement and the other bits and bobs that go into these systems. The nobody is winning the lion's share of anything, at least overnight. But you have to define "safe". By "safe" I mean unlikely to lose money. But some investors are clearly defining "safe" as "having the greatest chance of owning a piece of the biggest thing ever."

I'm not following this super-closely, but if Anthropic is pursuing adding multi-step model based reasoning to their system, that could be the basis of a generational leap in capability. But if that is an approach that looks like it has a chance of working, then their competitors are no doubt pursuing the same thing. In that case you'd expect the revenue pie to grow as the scope of model utilty increases, but that growth to be split among several competitors. This could credibly result in a revenue stream for some of them that is as big as the entire industry's revenue stream today. But there's going to be hell to pay on the data center impacts end of things.

From TFOriginalScientificArticle: "Additionally, death certificates included a field for reported usual occupation (the occupation in which the decedent spent most of their working life), generally completed by a funeral director with help from the decedent’s informant."

Looking at Figure 1 from the paper, taxi drivers and ambulance drivers are clear lower-bound outliers in terms of risk from Alzheimer's. But they also die a full decade before the eyeballed mean of the population. There are a couple of data points in the middle plot from that figure that have just slightly higher adjusted risk of Alzheimer's, but have lifespans at ca. 80 years that are well *above* the mean. Regrettably, the paper does not discuss those data points -- me, I'd want to have those occupations since they trade a very slightly increased risk of Alzheimer's for 15 more years of life.

And, then, the bit that's also not in the headline and TFS is that taxi drivers and ambulance drivers have *increased* risk of other forms of dementia, especially taxi drivers.

Also, disappointingly, the paper does not show the full ranked list of occupations (even in the supplementary data), highlighting only a small handful (taxi drivers, ambulance drivers, bus drivers, airline pilots, ship captains, and CEOs).

At least someone realized that it would be a good idea to scan outgoing traffic.

One hopes that the internal reaction amongst the leadership was more than just, "bloody hell."

I had no idea that the good people of Littleton, Massachusetts had trademarked the name of their town.
I look forward to their lawsuit against those imposters over in Colorado.

You're making a classic mistake of reversing an association: "this A is a B" does not mean "every B is an A".

Which is to say, you're ignoring the fact that junior associates have attributes and capabilities that LLMs lack, in a wince-inducing oversight. Indulge me with a Sophoclean interrogatory: what can humans do that LLMs cannot?

This is the idea that the anti-AI folks are getting wrong. I'm a vastly more efficient and better writer, of code or of English prose, with an assistant than without. Assistants are, however, imperfect, whether human or artificial.

The current generation of LLM assistants are equivalent in quality of output to having a junior human associate, but at 1/100th the cost. And they're about 100x faster. Is their output perfect? No, but neither is the work-product of a human associate. Does the LLM (or human) output provide me with much of the legwork necessary to create things of clarity, efficiency, and, sometimes, beauty? Oh, hell yes.

I had an argument just last week about didactic presentation with a stubbornly anti-AI professor for whom I have been hired as an instructor for the course he runs. I made the assertion that very shortly, the expectation will be that anyone in that profession who does not use AI will not be bringing their full potential to the task. Personally, I think it is already true that anyone who is fundamentally a communicator of ideas and is not using AI is not achieving their best, but the field does not yet carry the expectation or assumption that everyone has an AI assistant. Not yet, but it will.

I do like the idea of building a community sourced govt official tracking network. I'm sick of govt officials, both elected officials and unelected bureaucrats, passing and implementing laws that they don't feel should apply to them.

I wouldn't favor a system that tracks cops due to the specific hazards they already face daily, but I acknowledge that some people would believe that turnabout is fair play.

Some bamboo species are even halophiles, growing where there is low-quality, brackish water and pulp-yielding trees are rare as hen's teeth.

For services that have no damned business knowing my real birthdate, I always use the start of the Unix epoch: 1/1/1970.

It has two advantages; (1) most calendar picker widgets default to January 1, so it's fewer clicks, and (2), for me at least, it is close enough to being true that no one would ever challenge it, even in person.

The factual reality it ignores is that mistakes by the judicial system in cases covering petty crime, family court, domestic disputes, civil torts, etc., have nothing whatsoever to do with mistakes made in capital cases. Asserting that mistakes made in a local municipal court, which would never see a capital case, is grounds for banning capital punishment is like saying that worms in avocados imported from Mexico means the sale of all fruit grown in the US should be banned.

Conflating capital cases with non-capital cases works against your cause, not for it. If you don't understand that, then you are less likely to achieve your goals. Zealotry -- which is fundamentally a political pose -- is not an efficient means to create change.