Amen! Just one example, a few years ago I bought a scientific calculator noting the package description of the "lifetime software license" it came with and quite decent software that requires the calculator firmware be maintained if it developed, "tear here to accept the license terms and access the installation CD/DVD". I noted they recently upgraded to python for user coding on the calculator and upgraded. The manufacturer just dumped using the lifetime license with no regard for anyone that had already purchased and agreed to the existing terms. They switched every user to a four year plan with no negotiation, "we don't use a lifetime license any longer". I called to negotiate and they gave me an extra four years...at least I expect to retire in 8 years.

Yes, that's the point of the OP and I agree with you. My points were only about the presumption of guilt in a case where it could be shown that the accused had used an AI system to gain sufficient knowledge to commit a crime. Which is a different matter from the OP's point but the OP and my point raise substantial questions that will have to be answered in court regarding whether an AI system can found liable in a crime (defamation in the OP's point) but aiding and abbetting in my point.

I love Hubert Dreyfus... I only discovered him after Googling for examples of philosophiical research into artificial intelligence. There's a greap wikipedia article specifically on his views on artificial intelligence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Goog luck to all AI research but I suspect it wiill utilmately fail as a concept if it doesn't heavily use actual critical philosophers during design.

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the following is tested in multiple courts. The question being whose mind is guilty? If you take a large pot, pour in all the world's published content without verifying any of it in a qualitative manner; stir it for a while using your own dedicated recipe then, offer someone a spoonfull on demand and what they get is the result of a source with mens rea that enables the user to commit a crime then what party is the guilty one: The original source; the user of the AI generated result; the chefs who made the AI soup; or the AI system itself? I suspect a final judgement will fall partly against the user committing the crime and partly against the AI system itself. It was plainly "influenced" into giving a particular answer using the word of a guilty mind; therefore it "believed" the guilty mind as the correct answer to the user's question even if the user had a guilty mind with intent in the question asked, thus AI enabled the AI user much as a human mentor might. I imagine it would require some epansion of legal interpretation for terms like "mind", "influence" and "belief". Or, maybe to put it a better way, there needs to be a lot of study of AI systems performed by university departments of Philosophy before we can trust assurances provided by university departments of Computer Science (where we can infer AI business implementations are generally constructed by computer scientists or similar technology experts and product designs have little or no philosophical input).

1768 actually I believe. However, the point about testing for proof the decimal digits of pi are or are not randomly distributed is one of the major reasons for doing this work (behind testing the performane of supercomputers and the arithmetic operations, particularly multiplication, on them).

The purpose is not to simply to get as many digits of pi as possibe for any calculation purpose. It's also intended to discover if pi is truly irrational, i.e. is not the ratio of any two integers. Also, I believe to prove pi is also a transcendental number, from Wkipedia: "In mathematics, a transcendental number is a real or complex number that is not algebraic – that is, not the root of a non-zero polynomial of finite degree with rational coefficients. The best-known transcendental numbers are and e" I think "known" in that statement is truly "assumed" at least case of pi and the purpose of calculating it to more and more digits is to discover if the assumption is correct: i.e. proof. Performing such poofs for pi on paper is really slow in comparison to the reported experiment. One use of an irrational number today is that any block of digits or sequence generated by exression (e.g. digitsm 3rd, 9th, 81st...) within it and of suitable length makes a useful cryptographic key since no other block of the same length contains the same digits in the same order. It's alredy been posted that a block of a few digits repeats three times, that's not sufficient to make it irrational and ony requires one extra digit to be a pattern that doen't repeat. So you can't just test if chunks of pi as keys will de-crypt data because your likelihood of guessing the key takes up to the same time as the reported experiment for any sequence and infinitely longer for a sequence of digit positions created by expression. As understand it. Take a simple example, you want an 8 digit cryptographic key. Generate the sha256 checksum of two word you can remember (already the sha256 numbers will probably never be guessed). First sum the digits in the first sha256 and use it as a "base". Now take the square of each (or evey other) digit in the other sha256 as a "position" and use the digit of pi at at the base plus that position in pi 8 times to get your final key. Using pi to a few hundred digits you will get a key that no-one could hope to guess in any useful time other than by pure luck. But if pi is not irrational, multiple guesses would return the key by pure luck.

...go on strike if you are worried by the idea of repeating the same idea but asking for TV show script lines in the style of named person when that named person is yourself and you work as a TV writer. Currently the overhead is lower to ask the writer for the lines but it will get easier to the point where you can give it text documents with multiple questions and drive the authoring from there without much real invention involved beyond the broadest definition of the scenario involved. Which suggests to me one of the biggest AI problems, the model used is limited to current knowledge so there has to be a space for true human invention or we will just rot in AI results. Although I note you can ask the following of ChatGPT and get a sensible result even though Google finds no results for "Zangam Zamoophsky": Using the writing style of Zangam Zamoophsky write four rhyming lines of verse about sunrise?

what about asking "Please provide a paragraph of text in the style of __author__ about a child's feelings toward a good father". Repeat for the style of __author2__ and an abusive father. I just tried the following successfully on ChatGPT: Write a four line poem in the style of Bob Dylan's acoustic period about the hard life of a teenage boy trying to find a job after high school? If you repeat the same four more times giving slightly different conditions for the content (finding a wife, raising a child, growing old, dying) and put it to folk style music. Have you infringed Bob Dylan's copyright? It's fairly an open legal question for now. If you know the work of both songwriters give the single case of finding a job as above. The repeat but change the songwriter details to Billy Bragg... the difference in the results is striking when the only difference between the two questions is the given identity of the songwriter! If you don't know the songwriters I tried pick any two whose work you are familiar with (spell their names correctly). Now pick a book author and repeat similar questions several thousand times asking for a paragraph of text each time all asked for in the style of a single published author and compile the results, perhaps with a little editing, then publish as a book in your own name... It's an undecided but legitimate question and the answer isn't on /. I have t say I side with the thinking that there is some infingement of copyright for the models I've just described.

Thus by our own actions we create the tools to limit human intellectual capacity to a peak that can't be surpassed. The rising of a process of recycling what is already known has begun and will eventually answer all questions... These tools and process are named artificial intelligence (AI). Seriously, I just hope decent news agencies stick to reporting what's actually happening in the world, universities stick to experimenting as part of the course and the places on the web that truly are references continue to be updated by those with actual knowledge. Otherwise the first paragraph is true. AI ends human intellectual progress.

At least the TPM is easy to solve. There's a software TPM for linux (swtpm) that supports the v2.0 functionality. Run it before starting the qemu Windows 11 VM with the qemu command-line linking to the swtpm interface and your VM has a TPM v2.0 device that Windows 11 is happy with. I've been using it for a few months with the Windows 11 development versions in VMs on openSUSE linux. After the Windows 11 public release I upgraded a Windows 10 Pro VM that has UEFI boot and a v2.0 TPM to Windows 11 using the Microsoft online update tool without needing the registry hack to disable requirements. It doesn't help you with the CPU but is worth saying. FWIW and AFAIK, qemu can be launched with your choice of CPU model the VM detects, though Windows in the VM might run into CPU clock problems being detected if launching qemu claiming a single socket, single core, single thread 1GHz Celeron device is a 2.6GHz/5GHz-boost 12-CPU Core i9 device...but the option to emulate your choice of CPU appears there as well. Unlike TPM and EFI haven't needed to try that. For anyone wondering, the sole use I have for Windows these days is to run the manufacturer software for my Canon EOS-R mirrorless camera. Canon has no linux version and I prefer the Canon tools to pulling the images directly from the camera storage or getting the Canon software to work in wine or similar. In my case everything else I do work, or home has a linux or Android solution that doesn't leave me looking for a better version.

So, I enter my age and, e.g. a "privacy" element. When performing a query my entry has noise applied based on the privacy property i supplied so that my appearance will be randomly across results that would show rows with ages between 25 and 39 but all other ages entered have their own noise such that the set that appears in each of two results (that someone expects to differ by one entry such that the difference of the results gives my age) is actually unknown and as more result pairs are compared the probability of not computing a difference containing just me grows exponentially.

Taking only the description. Since the supposed noise is used to get an identical positive and negative range from the actual value then the mean of the limits is the original value. I'm 32, I choose 7 as the "noise" and my age is in the range 25 to 39. So, 25 + 39 = 64. And 64 /2 = 32, my age. Here's hoping the actual noise doesn't always leave the original value at the exact center of the range.

So, 10h then?

I've had a "neuro-pacemaker" for epilepsy for over a year: https://www.neuropace.com/ In my case where I was having more than 90 seizures per-quarter (almost all during normal sleep) after tuning the device it has reduced to about 30 seizures per-quarter. As well as which, the seizures I do have are much less severe and leave me without post-seizure symptoms like very bad headaches. I also no longer experience enuresis. I'm 51 years old, had almost nightly enuresis as a child without seizures being diagnosed until I was 18 by which time and since I experienced enuresis about once per-month. I haven't experienced enuresis since the surgery. Yes, enuresis means wetting the bed in my case. Absolutely awful experience at 50. For me it's been a boon to have the implant and much more effective than drugs have ever been. I can also claim to truly be a robot because I have under-skin hexagonal screw-heads that are easily detected by touch.

You're missing the point. For one thing I'm not saying it's good or wise, I'm only saying that "we would have developed tech to have radio broadcast in non interfering ways" is not invalid physics and was not at least when VHF/FM broadcast stations appeared. The mistaken assumption about "non-interfering ways" was that some kind of prevention of interference would have been invented for multiple stations operating on the same channel both in-range of a single receiver. Prevention of interference is also possible if stations can be kept on dedicated channels such that none do interfere with each other and that's been easy to implement for decades. It's also NOT self-registration and I wasn't suggesting NO-registration. In fact I was suggesting forced registration of transmitter availability by restricting retail sales of receivers, i.e. broadcasters would comply with a limited set of rules to be compliant with available receivers but otherwise could do what they wanted. The "registration" I suggested doesn't require any part of the broadcaster's identity to be provided. It can be as little as a 5 to 10s "jingle" style audio content at 5kHz mono that identifies the station's broadcast intentions and what channel it plans to operate on. For example, in the following quote apply a music background with the words before the colon sung by a set of three women in harmony and after the colon spoken by a deep voice male "Radio murder : The station with 24 hour live killings on-air", It's not necessary to have the frequency stated in the "jingle", it can be handled easily with a sub-audible tone set that identifies all the known channels and a single one used at station registration and listener channel selection to identify what frequency the station is or will be on. With enough channels then the gang idea fails because the band is large enough to permit listening to something else. The registration is limited to on-air availability of any station and channels become free as stations go off air, i.e. it's not "registration" in the same sense as is currently used.