It's always fun to bet with someone else's money...unless it's the mob's...

There are plenty of "potentially crash inducing actions " that a pilot can do, forcing two to do them also means in an emergency you are complicating the response nad keeping one from flying the plane while the other coordinates the emergency response.

Good point. It will be interesting to see how the aging workforce, lower birth rates and changes in the labor market play out.

One of Chinaâ(TM)s economyâ(TM)s purpose was to provide jobs while keeping labor costs low. This helped avoid political unrest. If AI and robotics change the deal it will be interesting to see the societal implications and impacts.

I'd add they likely have been vetted and mistakes corrected (though some may still exist) and have proven to be good tools. Trying to convert that would introduce new mistakes, you'd likely lose data, etc. As long as it works don't try to make it 'better' because better may not be better.

Good points. I'd add time consuming as well because now you have to go to the developer to make changes rather than doing them yourself. A simple quick what if? that takes a few minutes to do now could take days as you get into the development que; costing more time and money than its worth.

Many of those same countries willing offer incentives to get companies to locate operations there; it's not like they are innocent victims. Actions like India's will lead to counter actions to retaliate for such fines, resulting ultimately in both sides being hurt or one backing down.

In other news, the catholic church is suing OpenAI because they had the idea to simply make suicide illegal a thousand years ago and have been using it ever since.

Not sure if it's a trade secret or a copyright case, the news often don't mention the fine details.

That's a good point. Here on /. I can assume people know what open world games are. Out in the real world movies are probably the better analogy.

The movie analogy is old and outdated.

I'd compare it to a computer game. In any open world game, it seems that there are people living a life - going to work, doing chores, going home, etc. - but it's a carefully crafted illusion. "Carefully crafted" in so far as the developers having put exactly that into the game that is needed to suspend your disbelief and let you think, at least while playing, that there are real people. But behind the facade, they are not. They just disappear when entering their homes, they have no actual desires just a few numbers and conditional statements to switch between different pre-programmed behaviour patterns.

If done well, it can be a very, very convincing illusion. I'm sure that someone who hasn't seen a computer game before might think that they are actual people, but anyone with a bit of background knowledge knows they are not.

For AI, most of the people simply don't (yet?) have that bit of background knowledge.

And yet, when asked if the world is flat, they correctly say that it's not.

Despite hundreds of flat-earthers who are quite active online.

And it doesn't even budge on the point if you argue with it. So for whatever it's worth, it has learned more from scraping the Internet than at least some humans.

We didn't. The media and the PR departments did. In the tech and academia worlds that seriously work with it, the terms are LLMs, machine learning, etc. - the actual terms describing what the thing does. "AI" is the marketing term used by marketing people. You know, the people who professionally lie about everything in order to sell things.

It is not just ludicrous, it is irrationally dangerous.

For any (current) LLM, whenever you interact with them you need to remember one rule-of-thumb (not my invention, read it somewhere and agree): The LLM was trained to generate "expected output". So always think that implicitly your prompt starts with "give me the answer you think I want to read on the following question".

Giving an EXPECTED answer instead of the most likely to be true answer is literally life-threatening in a medical context.

Certainly sensor technology has improved with modern designs, but the notion you can rely on sensors alone is wrong, and dangerous, IMHO. Sensor fail, power is lost, etc.; all of which will require an operator to check. Even with advanced sensor technology, there are things that indicate problems that sensors will not pick up. Even something as a valve failing to operate, developing a packing leak, or its position indicator giving a false reading will need an operator to check. If you 'bury' the reactor and have to shut it down to check on something to verify sensor readings, you may find the costs to operate way higher than you expected. As much as I think nuclear has a key role to play, the idea that a plant can simply be 'buried' and operated fully remotely seems to be more a dream than a reality.

We see these ideas that are obviously nonsense all the time. This one has been picked apart by multiple people with industry experience already.

What these things are is essentially the venture capital version of the scam mails you get in your mailbox every day. If you make it big enough and insane enough, someone with more money than brains will think he spotted an opportunity that everyone else missed and will invest.

Why is it, you think, that 99% of these things vanish without a trace after an initial storm of publicity?