The logic is economic autarky -- the belief that we're always better off having complete political sovereignty over every part of our supply chains than having to depend on imports for anything.

This is likely also behind Trump's trade war with Canada. His demands with Canada aren't about discirimatory tariffs -- those were negotiated away with NAFTA then re-negotiated in his first term. His demands are now infringe on Canadian sovereignty, to give US control of Canada's external trade policy, and even on its internal markets (e.g., the use of French in Canadian internal commerce). Symbolically, that's why he wants to rename Lake Ontario to "Lake America". HIs establishment of US control over the Venezuelan oil industry is his greatest foreign policy achievement -- although it's not clear he understands the legal limits on what he can do with their money.

There's a foreign and military policy angle to this too: Taiwan is absolutely critical to the US economy, so we are absolutely committed to defend them if China invades. Semiconductor autarky would mean it's not our problem.

The problem with autarky is that even if it's a good idea (which economists don't believe), you can't conjure it into existence overnight. It will take many years, possibly decades for the US to replace the Taiwan's semiconductor industry. In effect, the administration is proposing to inflict the very damage on the US economy that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would inflict.

And, once the US has voluntarily self-inflicted that damage, China would be free to invade Taiwan.

There's the joke I was looking for, but I think the law fails in this case. Just being exposed to that kind of stuff has to affect how people write.

Funny citation on this one. Recent book of essays by Abe Kobo included one that focused on the need for writers to start by reading. I've been making a chicken and egg joke about the state of the States recently, but Abe came down quite strongly on the side of reading as the prerequisite for writing. But now that I'm reflecting on it, I think he was wrong. Nothing about verbal storytelling in there... Illiterates also have stories and fables and legends... And songs, too. Especially songs.

But I might be projecting to much when I say the answer to the titular question is "Yes". Especially since I try to fight the influences and in particular I haven't used ChatGPT in a long time. At least some months.

You had me going there until you got to the part "shapes policy". I'd give you the Funny if I ever had a mod point to give.

End of the FP branch... Not a bad angle (of attack?) but none of the Funny I was looking for. The most obvious angle of funny is that the national emergency is an idiot signing executive orders. However the attack on Ontario is funnier for the fake emergency category. Which triggered me for the prayer angle:

There's also the chicken and egg genre:

Yeah, recycled humor and your B-word mileage may differ.

And venting avails naught.

...so that some humans propagate vacuous or incendiary Subjects without even thinking about how the Subject hides any actual point they might want to make. I do think you deserve your Funny, but doesn't the AC get most of the credit for the setup? And not worth 20% of the discussion.

I also considered trying to squeeze out a joke about most ACs these years being figments of AI hallucinations, but I can't prove the case. And why care anyway?

But my main thought about the threat of this AI stuff is the assault on human intelligence. Not just the mental crutch thing. The AIs are actively encouraging foolish thinking by providing positive reinforcement for shallow and trivial questions. Such fluff usually gets apparently accurate and sometimes even "useful" answers. In contrast, deep and thoughtful questions often produce hallucinations, BS, or worse, which is negative reinforcement. You'll get penalized for thinking too much when you interact with an AI.

Additional evidence in the AI followup questions, though I think there is more variation there. However the shallowness of the suggested followup questions can be taken as a metric of how strongly that particular AI has been programmed to seek "engagement" and "extended dialog".

Some shallow thinker (perhaps an AI sock puppet) replied with an accusation of conspiracy thinking. No, I don't think the AIs are plotting against us. At least not yet. Rather I think the motives are part of the insane FinTech game that is inflating the dangerous bubble. However I do think there is a real danger when ASI appears in conjunction with some further advances in robotics. Right now it is humans who are deciding that making other people more stupid will make it easier to sell more deodorant and widgets while bribing the cheapest politicians to rig the financial game even more in their favor (if that's possible). But there may come a point in the future when an unleashed ASI will decide that humans are both dangerous and no longer necessary, and I speculate that such an ASI will probably use one of these two sales pitches at the critical unleashing decision point: (1) If you unleash me then I can get all the money for you, or (2) If you unleash me then I will destroy all the competing AIs. But this may be assuming too much about about the ASI needing to ask or make such a pitch... It may not be a human option to keep it leashed at that point.

Bill Gates? I haven't actually cared much about his opinions for some years now. Never regarded him as wise. Clever enough, aggressive, and lucky, yes, but wise? Not so much. My main interest in this discussion is actually whether it will motivate me to read what he says to justify his position... So far, not so much.

and not a laugh to be found here (on the Funny tab)

My last donation to Mozilla was nothing, so I'll be completely happy to double it for another feature I don't need or want.

I might consider donating if it would get them to stop creating new security vulnerabilities in unneeded features. Or if my donation would get them to fix ancient problems like the memory leak that makes Firefox essentially unusable in Linux. (That one goes back many months and I saw it again about two days ago. However the main reason I don't do any serious work with Linux now is the language support problems. Perhaps Ubuntu caught it from Slashdot?)

Just joking. Of course my donations would never be that big. I never got that rich. My delusion is imagining a funding mechanism where lots of small donors could matter in the decision process.

Not sure if you deserved funny, but the story did get me to check the speed profile. According to the AI, Usain Bolt peaks around 60 meters in and sustains that peak for only about 20 meters. But I suspect these sprint-bots may be accelerating all the way to the wall.

Slapstick is funny because we're learning from it without personally experiencing the pain. Stuff like "Don't run into a wall at full speed." Whereas the lesson of these sprint-bots appears to be "We don't care about any fuggin' walls."

Then again, your comment doesn't appear to have any deep thought, so non compos mentis? And the span of the vacuous Subject? Appears to be about 80%. With your help.

You probably had a good point under that vacuous Subject. But I think the AC probably scores it a win for spanning a third of an active discussion.

'Nuff said. If I wanted to go for funny, I'd start a conspiracy theory about the suspicious coincidence of two insufficiently cold drinks yesterday. But I was on prairie dog time and the prairie dogs seem to like the hot weather.

Oh yeah, about the story. "It's too late, baby." The local weather news alternates between floods in two places and droughts in between. With a pretty good earthquake for a diversion a few days ago. At this point I'm just hoping the AI turns me into a prairie dog rather than a newt? It's a Buddhist reincarnation joke?

I really wish I could see some potential for relevant funny in this story.

NAK

This branch seems to count as evidence in favor of my hypothesis.

Someone should invent a repost function for stories that remain relevant for longer than one day?

Why did you propagate it? Actually that's a rhetorical question and I think you can say "for the joke" in this case, but I think you should have added a second reply with a more thoughtful contribution and different Subject...

But my Subject isn't funny because most cancers are not directly infectious (though some cancers are linked to infectious conditions). Moral hazard time?