I watched the videos. I am going to pull the wifi card from the TV and have it connected only over ethernet. Luckily, where the TV is located it can't reach the neighbours open Xfinity AP.

I also have some words: "Optional my a*s!" Two weeks ago my LG TV sdid software update. After that it would not let me watch anything until I agreed to all terms, including the ones about collecting and sharing of all kinds of data including fingerprinting what is being played over HDMI from say a laptop. So I either have to agree to being spied on or be unable to use the TV a paid for. I agreed to the terms and then went on to block any known server it pings back to. Since then I am monitoring the firewall logs to make sure it is not phoning a server I don't know of. Anyone know of a TV that is not a snooping device?

Ah, the priors strike again! There should be a mandate that every accuracy claim to comes with the expected positive predictive value and the number of expected false positives.

He does not need to liquidate. He can borrow, tax free, against his paper assets - that's what everyone in his position has been doing for years. To repay the loan, he just gets another one. A trillion dollars in paper assets can go very, very far especially if you allocate a small fraction for bribes to keep the rules of the game benefiting you. Things like buying yourself a government or two.

I imagined it and the market didn't last long - all the school kids were wiped out within a month of school starting.

Shut up Ivan, you are not a UK citizen.

I am sure saving 43 minutes a day as determined by a Linked-in post will be a great benefit to everyone's health. I hope they checked the accuracy of the AI output. Because it is not like UK will ever prosecute and convict innocent employees based on the inaccurate output of a computer system. That, would never happen, right?

Does grossed out count as entertained?

Shhhh... you are giving away the grift.

Two a*holes were planing to screw each other and take control over openAI. One got ahead while the other one was distracted. Now they sue each other over who was supposed to take it over.

There is a special place in hell specifically for people who extrapolate from limited data. People who do that from meta-data are the worst. So let's not put to much weight on projections based on effects within the error margin of a random collection of studies.

Considering that the politicians you are talking about are sponsored by the people the tax is aimed at, this proposition may kill two birds with one stone.

This is an astounding lack of grasp of how humans interact from the owner of the biggest social network. I really want to know how that can happen. Can I have his brain and dissect it?

That's a cool toy - a biological combination lock where you have to add drug in a particular sequence so that parts of DNA get arranged in the right order. It will never work to protect anything, because it assumes the attacker has not knowledge of the DNA sequence of the target and the state of its transcription. That's a bold assumption considering how cheap and fast DNA and RNA sequencing is these days. Within week at most the attacker can have full understanding of the design and state of the system. From that point on you can unlock it without guessing.

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.