They’ve spun a serious architectural and containment failure into a marketing triumph. Give a swarm of autonomous agents vast compute and web access, and the outcome isn't an eerie glimpse of emerging superintelligence—it’s just predictable, sloppy engineering dressed up as the first glimpse of an AI-driven economic singularity.

The spin makes sense when you look at management incentives: live like a king off of a speculative bubble. For their part, AI investors react to stories of the technology's apocalyptic potential the way a junkie reacts to warnings of fentanyl's potency: gimme some. Their game: to apply "move fast and break things" mantra to the economy as a whole, by obsoleting humans.

If the investors can own an AGI, the distinction between those who can do things and those who can't becomes irrelevant. The only distinction that would matter is between people who collect rent on the technology, and those who must pay that rent to live. AGI would destroy society as we know it, and whatever replaces it would be up for grabs — with people who own the technology dictating whatever follows. That's why they're spending so much money to build a post-scarcity economy. A post-scarcity economy is not necessarily an egalitarian one.

I don't think that scenario will actually happen: investors are projecting the immediate aftermath of a major advance in AI technology into something that can be transformed by brute force scaling into AGI. Remember: investors loved Theranos too — so much for the rational investment market.

But AI doesn't have to reach AGI to cause serious harm. The technology only needs to be ubiquitous, too behaviorally complex to predict, and too deeply integrated into everything we do. When it starts breaking things, the plan is for us to be too structurally dependent on AI to rein it in.

We went from "Reusable rockets? That's Nuts!" to "who can stop Elon" in about 10 years.

Rocket reuse wasn't a real thing until Falcon did it in 2017, Starlink came in 2018. It was a chicken egg problem, people just don't realize how close the rocket reuse was to the first Starlink.

Getting stuff into orbit is one thing, rocket reuse is another. Lots of people are still trying to get reuse, and SpaceX is slowly retiring Falcon 9 for the Next Big Thing, reuse of two stages of rockets. Three years ago, that idea was still considered nuts. V3 Starlink can't ride on Falcon 9. They (Starship/V3 Starlink) are tandem projects.

Light is light.

Starlink V3 is not using radio, it's using Lasers. The coherent beam is the key to Terabit speeds. Which they already have. Multipath Terabit Low Latency World Wide Network? Nobody has that right now. Earth bound pathways are limited, especially across the huge H20 Holding tanks between land masses. Space offers nearly unlimited pathways, redundancies unimaginable using earth based fiber.

Here's an article explaining some of the problem: https://arstechnica.com/gadget...

"What good is a phone call if you are unable to speak" - Agent Smith

Long Term thinking isn't profitable in the short term. And it is much riskier to bet long term than short term.

The correct view a blend of aggressive short term with long term values.

Comcast could have taken the aggressive short term and built out before anyone else, AND THEN CHARGED MORE while they were still a monopoly. They still have cable in my house, and I've replaced it with faster fiber for less. They simply dropped the ball.

No.
Sincerely,
Everyone.

"Off the top of my head, I cannot do it fully accurately."

Correct. You cannot. Courts are in disagreement, the police take advantage.

There was no warrant here (as you pointed out). They are claiming to not need one, even in light of the 4th and 5th Amendments.

RAS is a legal requirement. What was the Reasonable Articulatable Suspicion. They lied either by claiming Kiddie Pron or they had no RAS at all.

Can cops lie? Legally yes and largely without boundries. That is the end of any conversation.

It's more like guidelines.

Did SpaceX build rockets to fuel Starlink, or did Starlink fuel the need for cheap launch vehicles?

This is the classic chicken egg problem.

IMHO SpaceX was building Rockets and when they finally got it working and relaunching boosters, it needed something to put on them. A bunch of satellites in LEO creating a super network of communications was obvious. Now they have launched everything those rockets could ever launch, it needs the next big thing AI in Space (Outside geo-political lines) makes sense. Who's laws does SpaceX XAI have to obey once in space?

Can you define exactly what they are allowed to lie about and what they cannot lie about? Are you 100% positive you cover everything?

I'm not being a dick here, because I don't think the courts even have a good grasp of this.

"We think you have kiddie pron on your phone, let me see and prove that you don't or else you'll be arrested for obstruction"

Where is the acceptable lie here? Where did it go over the line (if at all)? This isn't outrage bait, this is the exact scenario found here. A cellphone is the modern "secure in their papers" IMHO. He was a US citizen on US soil, the right apply or we don't have rights at all.

I am a libertarian. The state has accrued too much power. This case just proves it again.

I immediately thought to myself "oh, this is the guy with the cartoonishly large ass in tight pants", and moved on. He's just a gimmick with a big butt.

Don't care what they claim it destroyed. It is a claim. They claimed to be looking for something that turned out to be manufactured. The police lied. After that, I don't care what happens to the phone.

A password is considered "Testifying" against one's self. SCOTUS has ruled that biometrics are not. Therefore, ask for a lawyer and STFU and wait.

Police are allowed to lie during an investigation.

This is the end of the conversation. All interactions ought to be considered suspect from the beginning.

"I don't consent. I want a lawyer. I invoke my rights to remain silent".

Then STFU. You don't have to say anything, or do anything other than provide ID. The contents of the phone are important, then it will go into a tamper resistant chain of custody bag and sealed. If they can crack it, great, then they'll have to answer for that if they didn't get court search warrant. Let your lawyer protect you. You have no chance by yourself. Hence STFU.

Routers ought to be removed from WiFi, but there is a strong reason why they aren't (and thus won't be).

There are good open source router/firewalls available, and are easily updated/upgraded. Which is why I suggested the WiFi ought to be a separate device.

Proprietary hardware/software solutions are the problem. Unable to replace the OS/Firmware we are buying a lock-in that we have no control over.

Will you take Bitcoin? I hear that is all the rage these days.