*** for customers who can still receive power.

During the freeze in 2021 or so, we had rolling blackouts. Myhouse was without power for 26 hours, 14 hours, 11 hours, 5 hours, 5 hours, 7 hours, 3 hours, 1.5 hours, 30 minutes, 45 minutes, and 12 minutes or so that week.

Also, wind turbines kill approximately zero humans per gigawatt-hour. That cannot be said of coal or natural gas plants.

As careless as it sounds, dumping it into the ocean might well be the most enviornmentally sound plan. Dilution would be sufficient to just make it a non issue.

This caught my eye from the story;-

Former Meta AI chief Yann LeCun is also skeptical, posting on X.com that Anthropic's Dario Amodei "was already claiming that GPT2 was too dangerous to open source back in 2019. I made fun of them then. Everyone should make fun of them now."

Hang the fuck on Yann. The ACTUAL warning was that GPT2 would lead to the internet being flooded with bad advertising copy, fake news stories, impersonations and spam.

That actually happened Yann!

You did not just diss Dole Whip? That stuff is the frozen nectar of the Gods when you've been walking around for hours in the hot Florida sun.

It is possible to put laws into place that require how public-private partnerships work. It would be an imposition upon Flock and upon the police. And that is just fine, and as it should be.

Law enforcement contracting to the private sector should not be allowed to be a bypass of our rights.

The only place I see Al in the legal profession making sense is to do basic caselaw research, where it can cite the sources and the references upstream and downstream to those sources. The lawyer should be responsible to review the claimed caselaw citations to determine the merit of their support for the argument that the lawyer is making, and to pick the particular citations to use that are the strongest for the particular case.

Likewise the same sort of search but inverted, for one's opponent's most likely arguments or rebuttals might be performed, again with the lawyer doing the review based on the citations that the Al tool provided.

There was a television series in the 2010s called Person of Interest where the premise was that one of the main characters had managed to achieve Al, but in order to satisfy legal constraints, the Al was only allowed to spit-out a single phrase about a person, rather than any detail of any sort. It was up to the limited number of persons associated with the Al to figure out why this 'person of interest' had been referenced, whether they were the perpetrator, the victim, a witness, or someone who would suffer downstream effects. While soft science fiction, and pretty clearly taking inspiration from the older series Quantum Leap in having to figure out why they were there, the concept had some merit as to how Al should really be used. It should be treated as untrusted, it should be treated as requiring thorough review. It should be treated as another tool available, but no more trustable or authoritative than any other, and arguably a bit less trustable, a bit less authoritative.

I've seen firsthand in meetings people saying, "Well Claude says..." or "Well ChatGPT says..."

What's bothering me about this is that those running the meeting aren't shutting that crap down immediately.

Except that in basically all of the examples that you cite, the transition was from one proven technology slowly into another technology that was at least approaching some degree of maturity by the time it it mass-market adoption.

In most of those examples. early adopters were nearly all ultrawealthy who were using it for themselves. Those who weren't incredibly rich were technology-enthusiasts of some fashion or another. Those groups initially worked-out most of the showstopper-problems with the technology before widespread adoption, and in many of those industries either compatibility or outright law added extra constraint over time.

AI for the masses has taken a different development path. It's not ready and is misbehaving, to the detriment of many. "Hallucinations" should not be tolerated at this scale of deployment.

Not if you're the police.

Or as it was put nearly two millennia ago, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

This is why systems like this require human oversight. Arguably if there's a judicial review process for allowing searches, then this system needs to be required to use that process. With a system containing precinct, local court district, municipal, county, state, and federal district jurisdictions, the nature of setting up proper permissions alone should be a mandatory herculean effort, probably the most difficult part of the entire system.

Without such a system requiring judicial oversight to confirm that searches are authorized, all we have is a further slide into a police-state.

I think what they are, in effect at least, trying to say is that you do own (not license) the model output, but as a pre-condition for using their service you agree not to use the output to compete against them.

It's basically as if Microsoft said you can't buy our compiler if you are going to use it to build a compiler (or a clippy, or anything else that we do).

That market seems to be pretty saturated. Around here it feels like they passed an ordinance that every strip mall must have at least one smoke shop (with the obligatory obnoxiously bright LED signs saying things like "VAPE", "KRATOM", "THC", etc.)

Most of us here should be old enough to remember when people tried to do serious work under Microsoft Windows in the MS-DOS era, and it crashed if you looked at it funny. Another amusing "it's never going to work" technology story was the development of lithium ion batteries. Early attempts to design a working cell kept going up in flames - literally.

It was even one of the old running gags in Disney's Carousel of Progress that new technologies were inherently buggy.
"But we do have television - when it works."

Hell when I worked at Radio Shack as a teenager, the store had all the typical things you'd expect a Radio Shack to have and it was still rare to see any customers. That was still a well known retail chain at the time, too.