"Three times during the call he raised the possibility the people filming might be armed, though, when asked, he told the dispatcher he had not seen any weapons..."

Isn't this the equivalent of swatting? Swatting is illegal in Georgia.

What's the statistical confidence interval on that 10%? +/- 90%? I wonder if 10% in his mind is a big or small number.

The digital signature is based on the end product of Apple's camera pipeline, which includes a huge amount of pixel processing to deliver the vaunted Apple photo. And in the AI age, Apple might introduce additional processing, possibly at the semantic level beyond just pixels. All of that would be digitally signed by Apple. Apple's idea would only reveal if non-Apple devices alter reality, not if Apple makes the changes. Also, would there be any way to distinguish between photo touch-ups like slight lighting improvements versus semantic AI changes, or are all such edits lumped under the same umbrella?

The huge flaw in the bill is how superintelligence is defined. If a benchmark is specified, then a system can be engineered to not exceed the threshold of that benchmark while essentially being performant aside from the benchmark. If no benchmark is specified, then superintelligence is murky and devolves to an arbitrary personal definition.

It's also interesting that many AGI skeptics might simultaneously consider the systems to be dangerous due to being deficient (i.e., not superintelligent) and also dangerous due to being precocious (i.e., superintelligent).

Strictly speaking, the statement commented on the relationship between weight and diabetes. Perhaps some of that "blame" falls on the person, but there are also other factors beyond personal decisions. For example, governmental policy and corporate decisions heavily bias the available types of affordable food and eating habits. Drugs may also play a role, as we're seeing from the current rollout of GLP-1 drugs. Our car, desk, and screen culture fights against body movement and exercise. Household income may also play a role.

I agree with what you said, with a little semantic disagreement that the cars are sold below the actual cost but are produced below the unsubsidized cost.

There are two significant motivations for the Chinese to dump these cars below cost.

First, dumping devastates foreign manufacturing, which projects Chinese economic and soft political power while weakening competitor countries. It's perhaps ironic that the dumping intended to hurt foreign competitors is also hurting the Chinese companies themselves. By selling cars below cost to whitewash corporate reports, the companies move large amounts of revenue but hurt the intrinsic strength of each company. The only way a company can justify this suicidal strategy is to convince itself that it will survive the bloodbath while its competitors will go out of business.

Second, China is in the midst of a generational real estate crash that risks paralleling the 30-year Japanese deflationary period. Instead of attacking bad loans like the US and European countries have done, China has decided to export their way out of the crisis. This is an existential dilemma. China has been trying to pivot to the more stable domestic consumption-based economies of the West, but the real estate crisis interrupted that momentum. Unfortunately, China has been squandering the vast foreign reserves from trade surpluses to further feed the export engine instead of infusing that money into local consumption. As a result, China's export numbers mask the underlying weakness of the domestic economy.

Not a single other "Level 4" AV maker omits radar because they consider radar as essential due to compensating for camera deficiencies. Only a few ADAS systems use cameras without radar due solely to cost saving.

Tesla believes that shifting money from radar to lawyers to defend lawsuits is more cost effective, and unfortunately they might be right.

The Constitution is a document with words. Different people read those words and see different meanings. Only the five majority votes on the Supreme Court matter. If they want to throw an election to Bush or declare that Trump can run for a third term or even declare him as President for life without an election because of how they interpret the Constitution, they will be right and everyone else will be wrong.

The strength of the US governmental system never rested on the Constitution. It rests purely on the willingness of the people to behave in proper ways. Washington stepped down after his second term not due to the Constitution but due to his own ethics. Nixon was forced to resign not due to the Constitution but due to Congressional bipartisan ethics. It's not the Constitution that matters but the ethics of the people. And that is the real problem today.

Tesla got rid of buttons and radar to save money. Of course, that's not good for marketing, so they turn that cheapness into a positive.

Seems like something similar here with BMW. A money saving decision is being spun into a positive. Do young people really want center screen controls instead of buttons?

It's now common for executives and politicians nowadays to spew falsehoods that are said repeatedly and loudly enough until it's accepted as truth.

Also at a macroeconomic level, gambling is like a government tax where the collected revenue is entirely handed over to a private individual or company, i.e., a tax following by a 100% kickback or 100% inefficiency. Gambling and taxes both depress the economy by pulling money away from consumers, particularly the poor consumers that tend to spend and not save.

A chatbot conversation that police can legally see is just as admissible in court as a private journal entry on a desk in one's home that police can legally see. That seems obvious. However, there are separate issues involved. Was the evidence gathered legally? Was there a legal warrant or request? Was there duress? Also, using a chatbot conversation in court is far different than constant review to determine if police or supervisors should be notified.

Furthermore, it has nowhere near the impact of a $18 billion fine (counting all payments). 30% is predicated on YouTube and TikTok agree to similar payments and changes. So, it's (at least for right now), only 18 * 0.7 = $12.6 billion. Furthermore, that $12.6 billion will be paid out over 10 years. That's really $1.26 billion per year. Yes, that's something, but $1.26 billion compared to $18 billion for a company with $62 billion in post-tax annual profit makes a big difference.

How one labels others often reveals the spectrum location where one is situated.

"According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the unemployment rate for recent graduates — which it defines as 22-to-27-year-olds with a new bachelor's degree or higher — was 5.7% as of June, more than the rate for all workers, which stands at 4.1%"

The unemployment rate may be 5.7% for recent graduates, but the underemployment rate is 42.0%. That counts people who are working at a job that doesn't require their college degree. The unemployment rate was as low as 3.9% in May 2022, when the underemployment rate was 40.7%. That means that the full-employment rate has been quite steady over the last few years. There has been very little change in job finding probabilities for a single individual.

However, there are factors that make a similar employment rate feel worse. College costs have risen, and today's graduates have a lot of debt, while inflation-adjusted salaries have lagged while inflation chugs ahead.

Is using AI to help edit worse than using Gramatik or a spell checker or a buddy?