You can have subscriptions without annoying paywalls. I have no subscription to NYT and I make no effort to try to get their article details without one. But I still wind up in their subscription funnel because they purposely pursue a strategy of providing just enough access to get the link. It is at least mildly annoying to me and I don't think NYT is planning on compensating me for my wasted time the way they want to be compensated for their effort.

(That said I don't care enough to say there should actually be a prohibition on them doing that.)

You could make the same observation about an obstacle course: completely artificial, simple engineering to make one no human can pass, but typically dialed just to where some humans can manage it.

What are weight classes other than a way to artificially give people opponents they can beat?

As far as sports go the point is simply that the outcome isn't guaranteed. That leaves room for human ingenuity, risk taking, and showmanship, with possibility of both reward and consequence. (In this case, even if the robots were a literal pushover, the spectators and maybe even the opponent couldn't have known that for sure. Any future of the sport would have to adapt to preserve those unknowns between bouts.)

2001: Windows XP ran on as little as 64mb with 128mb being the recommended.

2021: Windows 11 minum is 4gb is listed as the minimum. I've never even touched Windows 11, so I don't know if that is realistic.

The minimum specs for each system is a 64x multiple, as you said. That's a good observation. I'm pretty sure in the late 90s I was running Windows95 with 96mb and my motherboard was capped at 128mb. Negligible ram on the graphics card. It also could have only been 64mb. I don't have a clear memory of what I was running when I first got XP.

Today my PC is a partially upgraded (old) i7-4790k with 32gb ram and 10gb of ram on the video card, so approximately 448x increase in memory in ~25 years.

My Mac is 256gb unified, so ~2,730x multiple.

Still not to the Moore's Law rate!

This is probably the best sentence (and post) that I have read on Slashdot in some time. Amen.

Debt is indeed a rising threat. Us federal debt has reached $40 trillion (greater than the total GDP), with interest payments now the second-largest expenditure after Social Security. The bill works out to $4k per person, or $12k per tax return filed.

Really consider that the first $12k on your tax return bought you nothing. Not just nothing personally, it funded no library, no road, no food stamp, it just evaporated into financial fees. And we're hitting a higher-interest era where borrowing is more expensive.

AI related growth and investment is what's been keeping the present economy floating in the wake of tariffs, accounting for something like 30-50% of recent GDP growth and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

It also the only thing that could possibly result in enough growth to offset the rising debt ratio and prevent a painful economic future. (Even then the growth will have to be on the very high end of projections.)

So it's weird to come away from that and imply AI is imposing an existential risk ("The Real AI Threat") due to "weaker or less durable investment and profitability in artificial intelligence". That's like if your take on medicine was "medical research is a catastrophic thing to get involved with, instead of curing all cancers we might only cure certain varieties, do you want a future in which you die from those cancers?"

Another thing that I have found Claude is really good at doing is taking an error from a log and doing a deep dive analysis of what happened. I give it read-only database access, access to www logs, access to application logs, access to a checked out source tree, etc. I paste in the error message (or in some cases paste in a tech support email from a user) and have it write up an analysis, a proposed response to the customer, and any recommendations (if there is a bug or actual problem).

Who was telling them that if they treated ectopic pregnancies they might face legal repercussions? Is that what the law actually said?

I believe you'll find it was the people who opposed the law who waged a campaign of disinformation to try to convince people that women would not be able to get life saving care. Turns out there are actual dangers to lying to slander your opponents when it's about what kind of medical treatment is available.

So lesson learned, going to be very careful not to mischaracterize in the future right?

The article OP cites is about a policy study for a policy that no one has so far enacted or voted for. How does that become proof that "they don't care about people and this lawsuit should be thrown out." How did you extrapolate the "they"? How did you manage to impart motive into every member of that collective based on an unfulfilled hypothetical? How did that lead to being able to seek an injunction on AI? Have you established it is the same "they" in question? And when the "they" has a position you don't like it become a prohibition on any action they could possibly take? How does that work in general?

Pennsylvania has a democratic governor, democratic house, democratic senator, voted for Obama, Obama again, and Biden. Their measles outbreak is laid up as a Republican failing? Why isn't Florida much worse then? Canada has been having thousands of cases to they point they lost their measles elimination status. Who is in control of Canada?

I'm glad you recognize the confirmation bias, yet I would dispute that it is in any way vindicated.

AI did not order the interception, put the assets in the air, or even submit the report. It got a manifest wrong in a chat session (not clear even it was its own error or related to the input), and that is... actually well-within common human error, not some special AI thing.

In fact intelligence is wrong all the time, and at all scales, but to name a big one, was AI to blame for the confidence of the existence of WMDs that was the basis for the Iraq war? Maybe it would have *averted* that war by helping with better assessment.

The story is sensationalized even without the effort to scaremonger on AI. There was never *any* chance of "causing a war" with China by interdicting a merchant ship in a officially declared maritime blockade zone, or we wouldn't have done it, even for nuclear components. In fact we've *already* intercepted Chinese vessels there and obviously they don't like it but just as obviously they don't feel like paying the cost of war with a major power to blow off their steam about it. (That's frankly a quite insane view of international relations.)

And it's not even clear to me that anything wrong was done. They double checked the intelligence, found it was incorrect, and ultimately took no action. Isn't that... exactly what is supposed to happen? Deploying your interdiction parallel to the intelligence check is a reasonable way to ensure a successful timeline in case something does need to be done. It's easy to recall planes in a false positive, not so easy to teleport them where they need to be for a verified true positive.

Unfortunately popular journalism is far from truth seeking. The dramatic and dangerous sells more copy, so that's what gets written. If you're going to use that as the raw material of your worldview, then of course it will wind up anti-tech and anti-science. At the very least I suggest finding a more reputable source of journalism to feed your biases than this slop.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "AI will extinctify the human species" is an extraordinary claim, but it's also entirely borrowed from cheesy sci-fi movies, and citing Terminator is apparently this guy's only evidence.

How will AI kill us all, exactly? In addition to the question of, mechanically, how does it obtain the physical capability and resources and organize them to that purpose, I want to know how it does it without any humans noticing or intervening? (not only that it would presumably have to go up against other AGI or near-AGI competitors - the solitary AI made by a random unwitting engineer from the movies is obviously not how the present has played out).

Let's say it is going to build killer robots to off us all. Where does it get the raw materials? How does it setup manufacturing? Make the purchase orders? Do the humans just voluntarily send it massive amounts of ore and build factories in their backyards? Or does it have to mine its own ore and they don't notice the huge stripmines? Does it get the robots right on the first iteration or do they start off as a typical MVP in which case again no one notices? What about the energy bills? How does it navigate the required in-person meeting with the city to sign off on the parking lot tree choices for its downtown killer-robot-factory?

There are so many friction points and assumptions of actual humans interacting with each other to get anything done that "skynet on your laptop" would be about as helpless today as if it had appeared 50 years ago. And unlike the movies it doesn't "just appear."

Could we over the coming years remove a lot of those frictions? Sure. But we could just not, and if we are concerned about them disappearing, then surely we want to see where AI leads *now* and if it has a dangerous temperament rather than *after* we've automated enough for it to manage our resources fully independently?

Being conscious of new threats posed by agentic actors is reasonable and can be grounded in reality. But people who want to feel important have been waving "END OF THE WORLD" signs on streetcorners forever.

I've been using Claude to both understand and assist in writing new code in DB/C, an obscure dialect of another pretty obscure language called PL/B or DATABUS -- all of which are descendants of (or highly influenced by) COBOL. It's pretty fantastic. It's a codebase that is ~50 years old, hundreds of thousands of lines, with code spread throughout modules, with jump tables and gotos everywhere. The code itself is easy to read and understand, but the flow is not!

I know nothing about this guy or this project. But the author of the summary apparently feels that, in the spirit of deep investigation and journalistic corroboration, the evidence we *really* need to evaluate is an unnamed blogger:

and not the actual quote from the guy apparently supporting the ethnic cleansing of Europe?

Either that quote exists, and is infinitely more significant evidence for us to see and evaluate, or it doesn't exist, and the author is just helping to propagate slander.

Given the author's choice I'll take a guess which.

https://www.cs.wisc.edu/2025/0...

And DARPA has a whole program for it:

https://www.darpa.mil/research...

Also, to preempt any pedantic response, yes, I'm aware that Cray computers are still very much a thing. But, using the phrase "Cray computers" as the epitome of computing power is very much a thing of the 1990s and before.

Hah, now see, I left some keywords in my last post you would have picked up on if had done national security work (at least connected to one of the bigger players).

That Wikipedia page is severely out of date. For instance, it quotes Hayden as NSA director talking about "Cray" computers. Hayden hasn't held a position in maybe 20 years, and his last position was as DCIA! US Intel is very, very aware of the computational and hacking abilities of China, North Korea, and others.

> Indeed. The Chinese also know that publishing a story about a found backdoor in their software would be a great exploit for the US and hence they know that the US is looking. Strangely, nothing has been found so far. Or rather very obviously, nothing has been found and the whole thing is nothing but lies.

Or maybe, just maybe, when the Chinese AND the Americans IC agencies find exploits and backdoors in the other's countries, they keep them quiet and monitor, save for later, watch other people exploit, etc.

Maybe, when 3-letter agencies in McClean and elsewhere catch incursions, they monitor them closely, analyze their tactics and techniques, and contain. It's a pretty Byzantine system, but that's modern spycraft.