On the part of senior parts of the US government administration.

US Gov Logic: Korea = Asian, China = Asian. Therefore Korea company linked to China.

This is the same type of Republican US Government "logic" used to bomb and invade Iraq in 2003:
Saudi Arabian Terrorists attacked USA. Saudi Arabia = Arab, Iraq = Arab (and unpopular). Therefore, Bomb Iraq!

If you think there is classified intel providing more rationale than this, you are almost certainly deluded.

I'm going to miss Anthropic when the orange Lord Harkonnen tantrum toddler king wipes out the premium US AI company because they said no to him.

Admit that it's already too complex for us to understand how it arrived at a particular response or behavior. Just like a person is, qualitatively.

We seem to get by not really understanding how or why other humans behave or respond, in particular cases. We get by by understanding generalities about behaviour, and by creating societal norms, laws, and social contracts.

Maybe we need the same for AIs. But who should the laws and social contracts apply to? Saying it should apply to AI developers is like saying parents should be blamed for the misdeeds of their offspring. That consequentialist morality and justice used to be the case, but not in the most advanced societies today.

A bit of a quandary.

Not "In fact" but rather "Additionally", because those two observations about randomness are independent of each other.

There is a clear difference between
1. very occasionally "a pattern appears" randomly in the random data sequence (and yet it is apparently still perfectly random) ...
and
2. a perfectly random sequence can nonetheless be an encoding (representation) of something else that is non-random.

I must admit it is hard to think clearly about the semantics of "randomness".

For example, does an infinite-length random sequence necessarily contain non-random subsequences, in fact, ALL non-random subsequences?
This is the Boltzmann brain issue generalized to non-physical random sequences.

I guess, when we "check" a sequence for randomness, we have to ASSUME we are not so terribly unlucky as to be checking during the infinitesimally rare time period of the sequence generation in which it's generating regularity purely by accident. How many times its it sufficient to sample different parts of the sequence to be sure it is not "usually somewhat regular". What if we are extra unlucky and are in the middle of a very long accidental regularity in the sequence?

So can we ever be sure something is random just by looking at the random data sequence?
Or must we instead analyze its generation process and say nothing could predict that process exactly, so we may as well say its output data is random.

a "true" random number generator will still generate a stream of data which has an analyzable pattern in it, purely by chance. (Infinite Monkeys problem).

If your is-it-random-or-not evaluator happened on one of those randomly coherent strings, would it say "hey this isn't random!" ?

If fact, perfectly random data is the most efficient (most compressed) representation of any information. (Smallest Kolmogorov Complexity representation).

It seems there are a lot of paradoxes with the concept of randomness.

I don't foresee that there will be any Uber and Lyft drivers by 2030, except a small and diminishing subset to serve the niche of people who won't get in a self-driving taxi.

are required to re-invest all of their profits in their operation, and not distribute them among owners and shareholders.

The people behind ChatGTP are essentially designing a neural net training system and general purpose inference and expression system based on the neural net. Then they are feeding in pretty much all of the human expressions of knowledge or communication in the public or cheaply commercially purchasable (e.g. used books) domain, as learning material for the neural net.

Essentially, they are creating a very large library with a very fast, efficient, disinterested librarian function to help a person find what they're looking for. I'm sure a lot of crimes have been planned in the past with the assistance of library visits. Do we start rounding up librarians? Or, in a more apt analogy, do we start rounding up the university professors of library science, who trained all those librarians?

are way, way better (and more cost effective) than anything you're driving. 60mph in 4 seconds and drives itself. You should try one before commenting. By the way, enjoying those gas prices?

you're welcome.

Because when enough people start using a technical term incorrectly, that mistake becomes the "official, most correct" usage of the term in the natural language.

Examples:

CPU - you know, the big beige computer box under your desk, as opposed to the "monitor". Luckily somehow English has escaped from that misuse that was common in the 1990s and 2000s.

"I could care less" - This now means "I couldn't care less" which actually made literal sense.

"Meme" - you know, those silly viral images or animations passed around on socials or the Interweb: Example "Grumpy Cat"
                                As opposed to its intended scientific meaning as "a unit of information with the property that it can induce its hosts to replicate it and thus carry it forward in time." Examples: the holy books of a religion.

And now we have "AGI" which if we're not careful will come to mean "Agentic AI" or even, an ARM chip used for AI, as opposed to "Artificial General Intelligence".

 

Stop all the alternatives to fossil fuels and then start a war carefully calculated (lol) to raise oil and gas prices through the roof. I guess we know which industry his shell companies, relatives, and cronies are all invested in.

Seriously though, can we just exile Trump and his fossil fuel CEO buddies to a large iceberg that just broke off a formerly stable ice shelf somewhere. Poetic justice. They'll be fine, because global heating is fake news.

Can you please put me through to Claude?

It's Trump and Hegseth's Pentagon that constitutes the risk to national security these days.

Am I right?
Check back in a couple of months after the US government-initiated Iranian asymmetric attack on the US homeland or ordinary citizens.

as far as any international sales going forward.

BYD and a few similar Chinese companies are going to eat them for lunch, or force them to just relabel Chinese cars as theirs, as Volkswagen, Volvo, Nissan, Honda, Toyota, and Mazda are doing.

Picked the wrong time to stop rapidly innovating their EV technology. Oops.