This is uselessly metaphysical.

I, Steve Wozniak, did not participate in the theft of the BASIC. It was funny to me to see others enjoying doing this. I had never used BASIC myself, at that time, only the more-scientific languages like Fortran, Algol, and PL-1, and several assembly languages. I sniffed the air and sensed that you needed BASIC to sell computers into homes, because of the book 101 Games in BASIC. I loved games and saw games as the key. It was the [MS] BASIC that inspired me to write a BASIC interpreter for my 6502 processor, in order to have a more useful computer.

It's hard to find people with Tim Berners-Lee's integrity. We should 'own' our own lives. It's a lot deeper than just being watched.

If Meta bought all the books they trained their AI on, it seems to me they should be allowed to do that. If you've purchased a copy of a book, you're allowed to analyze it with a computer.

Seems like it'd be a huge cost savings. And frankly, AI is more ethical than a sociopath, so it's a win-win.

The title is more aimed at being clickbait than attempting to be informative.
The only thing in the underlying article is that specific neural networks are good and efficient at producing approximate solutions to large sparse systems of linear equations. Nothing else.

Such big systems of equations result when you try to solve partial differential equations on a finite-element mesh by substituting a lot of base functions.

There are broadly 2 ways of solving such systems: direct (e.g. using the sweep method) or iteratieve. The neural networks are just a way of implementing the iterative method. The only thing interesting is that the specific neural networks proposed to do this can be calculated efficiently (also energy-efficiently) on specific hardware optimised specifically for that flacour of neural network.

The OP post tries to link 'math' and 'AI' here because, well, partial diffferential equations count as 'math', and neural networks are a form of 'AI', right? And that's how the OP 'justifies' its title.

Sorry folks, but his is a highly technical development which in no way merits the hoo-hah the OP throws at it.

Personally I find this explanation (the first link of the OP) quite clear and accessible (non-technical): https://www.sciencealert.com/f...
In summary: you can sustain denser plasma's if you can precisely control the way your plasma is started. That's useful because it helps your reactor reach a break-even point between energy cost (to make, maintain, and contain the plasma) and the amount of energy the plasma emits during its existence.

No they aren't. By your logic, any resistors in an electronic circuit would also be a 'bad idea' (which they aren't).
Tariffs add costs to imports. That cost increase is merely an instrument which can be used stupidly, indiscriminately, and inappropriately (like the Trump tariffs) or appropriately. As with any cost-structure adjustment, for it to have any impact at all, there must be positive effects for some and negative effects for others. Depending on your objectives the benefit can absolutely outweigh the cost.
Take the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism for example: it penalises any (steel) imports with excessive carbon emissions (e.g. from older coal-based production plants) compared to steel produced through more modern and less polluting processes.
What that does is to internalise external costs in order to clean up certain production processes.
Now why would that be a bad idea? (oh, and don't bother to reply if you only argument is that 'da gubbamint' shouldn't intervene in markets at all or if you feel that CO2-footprint reduction is either unnecessary or should only be done at zero marginal cost.)

I just hope that Mr. Trump and his advisors realise that this enactment of the Monroe doctrine implies that
(a) Asia is now China's backyard and Europe is Russia's (A deal is a deal, right?)
(b) national sovereignty has now become a lot more conditional (by common agreement).

By consequence, anyone who wants an uninterrupted supply of chips from TSMC had better be prepared to be extremely polite to China within a few years.

Apparently Europe is working to correct its mistakes and take back control of its strategic production lines. Just like the US.
Problem is: Europe's got a lot of ground to cover, they don't have a single government, and they're less prone to use import tariffs as a blunt instrument in every trade dispute.
Perhaps because they have more to lose and can inflict less pain on their trade partners than the US can.

...through fear-mongering and telling congress that people shouldn't have access to AI that OpenAI doesn't control.

I figured someone would bring up the myth of "the myth of talent". The art community is the absolute worst about this. To be good at art, you need both innate talent and practice. People who have that innate talent think that practice will get everyone there -- believe me, it doesn't. The reason you think it does is because of survivorship bias. Nobody asks me how I got to not be able to do anything art-wise except create copies of what I can see, so they don't ever find out that I practiced for decades and didn't get anywhere.

As it is, computers and programming are my skill, so I'm using that skill to generate art. Anybody who whines about me doing it that way is gatekeeping.

These sorts of theatrics exactly.

...not because it does.

It's all about gatekeeping the skill, time, and budget floor and propping up the wall between "producers" and "consumers". I worked hard to get where I am, therefore it shouldn't be made easier. I worked hard to make $20/hour, therefore we shouldn't raise the minimum wage. Etc.

The reason there aren't legions and legions of programmers protesting AI on twitter is because programmers are accustomed to change and we've learned to embrace it, yet every time there's a technology that changes how art is made (cameras, digital painting, 3d rendering, even pre-made pigments), there are a group of artists who flip their shit and say that the new technology is going to kill creativity and ruin art as we know it, then fifty years later all of the things that those people insisted are "not art" are in museums and art history books.

I hope a company in China gets ahold of the database and trains a good music generator AI on it and releases it for free.