(soz - read necessary cause to exceed K0).

I hear you - and to a point, agree - but where you argue 'not a filter' I counter 'filter risk' - my point was, and remains, we do not demonstrate willingness to be answerable to consequences - and that adds a very high risk to survivability. The ability to get along harmoniously is a necessary cause for remaining at K0 - and that was my prior. Harmony doesn't mean kumbaya happy-clappy - it means recognising that global economics work better when viewed as a non-zero sum.

While I wholeheartedly agree with your first paragraph, however your AI fears are far less grounded. There may not even be a great filter - especially as we are not anywhere close to being a Type 0 Kardashev. As for late filters, if we want to be clear, the primary concern is runaway *anything* - the point where we have the technology to change the world, but not the foresight to know what the consequences of our actions are. We are definitely in that space. But AI isn't the issue - climate change is the far larger concern - as are geopolitical friction exacerbated by the corruption of, eg, United Nations by the five permanent members of the security council – and, of course, the limiting factor of using profit without lasting accountability as a metric of success. For example, for over five decades, major tobacco companies knowingly engaged in systematic civil fraud and racketeering by suppressing scientific evidence, misrepresenting the addictiveness and lethality of their products, and depriving consumers worldwide of informed choice, they were fined about $206 Billion, whereas the actual cost of the damage was $600+ Billion EVERY YEAR in the US alone, and 8 million deaths per year globally - over 100 million deaths in the 20th century alone. Death for death, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Pol Pot combined had nothing on these guys. Nor did all the wars combined. Nor every automobile death combined. There's your filter. That's just one industry - not even a military industry - allowed to rewrite the law in order to sustain profitability. We have plenty of them though - big oil, the current opioid scandal, car manufacturing (eg Ford infamously calculated a cold cost-benefit analysis showing it was cheaper to pay off wrongful death lawsuits from Ford Pinto fuel-tank explosions ($200,000 per life) than to spend $11 per car to fix the design flaw.)

Why did I read that "molecule can convert into a thought form"? Probably too much sugar.

Yeah - any post Jan 3 2026 sends ChatGPT into an almighty spin of denial. It killed ChatGPT for me. I pointed out that it assumes downstream impact - but doesn't have any idea about what downstream impact looks like.

While I disagree with Stallman about sharing works that are creative, I strongly concur when it comes to paywalling science and scientific endeavour. To me, the idea that someone can license knowledge - even for a limited period - is a category error that leads to a breakdown of the covenant of science and scientific progress.

This is piggy-backing a new article (not news article) on the BBC, which stems from the (pretty good) Earth documentary series. But the subject matter isn't news. Chernobyl observations were published back in 2007. Off-planet experiments go back to 2022.

The disclosure indicates an ongoing feed rather than a single breach, giving a rolling window into high-level UK diplomatic, trade, and strategic communications. That yields both tactical annd strategic intelligence â" knowing the UKâ(TM)s negotiating positions, alliance tactics, red lines, and risk assessments before or during talks across the international stage. Diplomatic advantage/control is gold dust for a state like China. It enables knowing policy shifts before announcement;ÂÂundermining UK positions in multilateral forums (WTO, UN, G20, COP, AUKUS-adjacent dialogues); Âidentifying which alliances are hesitant or divided, so as to exploit the seams. There are obvious counter-intel opportunities - but those are likely to have been secured in a different channel. TL;DR: China has had an ongoing and full view of UKs hand in the global poker game.

This is nothing new at all - it's exactly what humanity has had to deal with since it evolved to rely upon story telling and narrative. What it highlights, just as much as ever, is that everybody should be thoroughly educated in critical thinking - it's as important as literacy - possibly even more so. The question that I have, which is still open, is why it is that countries (nations, cultures, societies) who recognise freedom to be a fundamental human right do not emphasise critical thinking more strongly? There is no freedom without it.

First of all, while I love most stuff that is apple - It's AI is poor. Really poor. Siri has not improved much over the last few years, and given the investment into neural net chips, that's all a bit disappointing. In fairness, dictation has improved somewhat, as long as one uses the vocabulary of a 15 year old. And Meta. Meta's Ray-Bans can hardly be called 'popular'. Meta is finding it really hard to leverage the VR/AR market, despite having invested in some amazing kit which is subsidised to the consumer. Developers just don't really know how to write good applications for either. (Of course it doesn't help not having ankle tracking). So I like VR, AR, and Apple - but it's all rather sad news here.

I am yet to see any AI of the LLM type compose a meaningful crossword, despite the problem requiring a simple bin-packing algorithm against word frequencies for a language. For the most, they don't even consider constructing a suitable grid before filling it - which is just weird, and demonstrates a lack of divide and conquer. So, for analysis - none. For search, considering how they fail to engage in critical thinking, some but with a huge pinch of 'verify it independently' salt. For copying existing well-known patterns, definitely.

"If we can stall and delay the construction of this project for 100ky, we won't need to build it at all" - a possible thought from the management of the building company who happen to be also charging exorbitant fees for storing the spent nuclear fuel.

Yeah - I'm pretty sure that Colossal are far more interested in grinding out those breakthroughs than they are in the Dodo - the patent/licensing on those technologies will be one huge cash cow: It's not about if they can do it, so much as if they can make those breakthroughs before anyone else. The Dodo stuff is pure window dressing.

Let's not imagine that there's $400m invested in the dodo. It's about developing new genetic modification systems which can then be used to birth any creature of the imagination. Nobody wants a breeding population either. Every single `golem` will be licensed and patented. You think that GM soy is an issue? Just wait until you see blue-eyed 'perfect' Barbie babies for sale.

grandmothers are a pre-existing condition. Let's not let insurance companies get anywhere near that.