Nothing in the OP relates to whether AI has human intelligence or not. The first case is who created the artwork - a human or a machine. The court decided it was the machine, although it could be argued that the art was human creation and the AI was just a fancy brush in the hands of a skilled artist. The second case was if communications on legal mater with AI are privileged. The decision was that AI is not a lawyer (duh!) so the communications are not covered by attorney-client privilege.

There is nothing in these decisions about if AI has human intelligence. I will be shocked if a judge would rule on such matter, simpli because we have no idea what human intelligence is.

The evidence contradicts your racist hypothesis - the higher fractions of Muslims correlates with fewer closed pubs. Muslims in UK:

1. England: 3,801,186 (6.7% of the population).
2. London: Has the highest concentration, with 14.3% of Londoners identifying as Muslim.
3. North-West: 6.6% of the population.
4. Yorkshire and the Humber: 4.8% of the population.
5. West Midlands: 4.2% of the population.
6. Scotland & Wales: Both have a 2.2% Muslim population.
7. Northern Ireland: 0.6%.

Kindly go back to your echo chamber for emotional support.

Clarification: I forgot the tag. Sorry (not sorry).

Subjcet says it all.

You should rid yourself of any mRNA in your body. That would keep feeling well until you die.

It is not as simple as you try to present it. First of all he ain't driving it. He is a passenger. Second, he wasn't taking pictures of the rocket:

This is what they call "espionage". I guess what happened is something like this scene (about 2 minutes in) out of Dr. Strangelove.

FAA may have an issue with "3. Passenger Attendants". Teaching positions are also quite safe, as AI seems incapable for the time being to separate fact from fiction (to put it mildly). Jobs that carry any responsibility, i.e someone has to sign off on it, are also safe because if there is anything tech bros would never do is take responsibility for their products. BS jobs on the other hand can easily be handled by AI - political and sports commentators, salesmen, models, "analysits" of various kinds ....

I may be too old to understand all the new fancy meanings of the word "Secret". In my backwards and tired mind if something was posted on the internet it does not qualify as a secret. Being unaware of information that has been out and about for years does not mean that said information was secret. It only means that the people calling it a "secret" were ignorant.

Are you telling me that the prospect of random ICE detention without due process does not attract tourists?

Yes, but in fact it is terribly bad idea.

Said like someone who truly has no clue about what they are talking.

• 1. Organoids, which are definitely not "cloned partial human organs" may be useful for evaluating some of the effects of the drugs, but have little to offer in terms of evaluating safety and efficacy. For this you need to understand how a drug is absorbed throughout the organisms, how it is metabolized throughout the organisms, how it is excreted from the organism, and how toxic it is to different organs. A little thing called AdMeTox. There is no way to do that on organoids.
• 2. we know that animal results do not fully translate to humans. After years of animal testing we also now why this is the case and how to correctly interpret the results from animal testing.
• 3. Not sure what makes you think the results from organoids and AI models will be more accurate, comprehensive or in any way better.

• /ul?

San Salvador is accepting any random people we send there without due process.

Too bad I have no mod points. You deserve score of 6 for this post.

You comment has to be pinned at the top of the discussion. This is exactly what the goal is. All other comments on the technical merit fail to understand that the "specs" are to enable grift and make everyone subservient beggar.

We have proof that that smoking causes lung cancer. Better than that, we know what in cigarette smoke causes cancer and how it does it. We also know that stopping smoking reduces the likelihood that a person will get lung cancer. And finally we know that as smoking rates declined so did the lung cancer cases. The fact that smoking causes lung cancer is proven as well as we can possibly do. Nutrition studies on the other hand a crap-shoot. The article speaks of this. They are very hard to execute properly as these days it is impossible to control someones diet for extended periods of time. We have done such studies in the past, but we no longer do for very good reasons. These days nutrition studies rely either on self-reporting or on gross approximations from large scale data that is not entirely reliable. This makes it very hard to discern cause from effect and separate confounding factors. How do you know that it is the food and not something else in the life style of the persons that east this food? Ultra processed foods are cheap. So people who tend to eat them are not doing particularly well financially. This also means that they have poor access to healthcare, they probably work physically demanding jobs, their jobs are more likely to be performed in adverse environments, and so on and so forth. Ironically companies like Apple and Google who have a pretty good records of our lives, including what we buy, where we work and how we relax are in the best position to carry out such studies. Do we want them to do that, and under what ethical guidelines will this data be accessible?