Right. The "massive" ballot fraud MAGA keeps harping about but can never show any proof. The "fraud" that is so prevelant, even Republican states can't show it.
People won't forget how utterly delusional Republicans are. After all, they elected and are defending a pedophile.
Peter Ticktin, Peter's attorney, said that she proposed that Trump seize ballots from across the country and conduct a hand recount, reports Kyle Clark of Colorado's 9 News.
"It's a good plan, and I do think that something like that is probably going to happen," Ticktin said to right-wing podcaster Joe Oltmann in Colorado. "In the event that we have this kind of disaster, and everything goes wrong, and the vote is crazy, and the senatorial races put it up there to remove the president and the vice president, in that nightmare, should it come true, Donald Trump is not going to relinquish control again."
And by disaster, they mean a blue wave sweeping across the country and driving out Republicans.
You know the video is going to be turned into a meme within minutes of it happening.
I predict that among the first memes will be Trump meme-ing it up by replacing the condemned man's face with that of Iranian leadership, saying "who wants to be next" or something like that.
... the Oscars not being shown live in theaters.
After all, women go for more decidely female-related professions such as female doctor, female surgeon, female attorney, or female director.
Of course the AI versions would get paid less.
Rapidly iterating over other peoples math homework isn't impressive.
It may not be impressive, but it can be useful. If, by rapidly iterating over others' homework, you or your bot can prove X, then it can boost everyone's confidence of MY research that relies on X being true.
... until March 32nd.
If they cause fewer deaths than they prevent, then it's still a win, because though some people would die who otherwise would not have, MORE people would live who otherwise would not have.
This is basically what I said, but there are nuances. If a net of 100 lives are saved but there are a net of 100 more people who are put in a lifelong coma and have to be cared for round-the-clock in intensive care until they die of old age, and everything else is equal, I wouldn't count that as a clear-cut "win" or even a "win" at all. Depending on the net value you put on a life of someone living in a decades-long coma, you might count it as a win and that's fair. But I wouldn't.
we must make mistakes before we know how to mitigate damage
That's why you run pre-production-quality hardware/software in test environments, and you plan for failure even in production environments.
Who cares if it can be used to build bombs, nuclear and thermonuclear power are and natural so they must be good for you.
Take AI-assisted self-driving cars. SUPPOSE for the sake of argument that self-driving cars CAUSE fewer accidents than they prevent, CAUSE fewer deaths than they prevent, CAUSE fewer serious injuries than they prevent, and the medical and other dollar costs of the accidents they CAUSE are less than the money saved by the accidents they prevent, it would be an overall win, EVEN IF some people die who would otherwise not die.
We don't have enough data to say if this supposition is actually true, but suppose it is.
The same is true for the "seatbelts save lives" argument: It's a net win, even if there are some edge cases where the use of a seatbelt may kill someone who might have otherwise survived.
Ditto medicines. Even for some common medicines that have been around for decades like penicillin, we know that overall they save lives but every now and then someone has a fatal reaction, killing a patient who was not at risk of dying.
IMHO, there are still too many unknowns with AI to let the industry go "full steam ahead" without putting in automated and human guardrails.
It probably was radioactive, just not harmfully so.
Speaking of radioactive things, I have this shipment of bananas....
Ever since deep-fakes became practical, artists and others should know they may be asked to show their work.
These days that means keeping all intermediate materials and revisions. If possible, time-stamp them in a way that is very resistant to being accused as being faked. There's 20th century precedent for creating immutable, time-stamped records.
Should artists have to prove a negative - prove they didn't use AI? Whether they should or not, the reality is these days they do, and any artist paying attention to the world should know this by now.
The best defense against logic is ignorance.
