They are if you never do anything outside of the click click drool UX.

They used to be pretty simple even then, but now they have all the complexity of any other system.

This is the console release, but even the last GTA game required connecting to the internet occasionally for a blessing, though it did/does run on Linux including the online component. However, the game is also absolutely full of cheaters, so I won't be surprised if the new version requires kernel DRM.

Rich folks like Elon, who broke USAID, killing tens of thousands so far and projected to add up to millions?

Certainly don't tear anything down. Mothball those plants in case they are needed in wartime, during unprecedented weather activity that disrupts solar production for long periods, etc. Maintain a reserve of fuel for them in the bargain. Coal is great for this because it's great at lying around. You certainly don't want to use it if you don't have to, but it would be foolish to dismantle it. It's worth paying to store it.

No, this isn't a thing. It's either being increased or reduced. The USA is doing worse by increasing, but we also need to be actually decreasing the use of fossils.

What customers need is information, so Apple has decided to bury some, because customer needs run contrary to Apple greed.

I had a B&W G3 with the Rev.1 logic board defect which caused data corruption on UDMA transfers. Apple elected not to include their page on remedies when they brought the old TechInfo Library into their new Knowledge Base, because instead of replacing the defective hardware, they told you to buy an expansion card and use up one of your four slots for it, at a time when literally the same card was $20 for PC or $100 for Macintosh.

Hiding information is what Apple does. That's how people can think their hardware is high quality.

I put WiFi 7 in my PC for twenty bucks, counting the antenna. They've got WiFi 6 that can only reach 24'? What year is it?

Increasing the energy demand is their problem, though. We can and should build societies in ways which use less power, like designing them to not need commutes. China wants to call itself Communist, let's see some Communism! Let's see them Commune! But the best they've managed so far is to do some minor riffs on the western strategy like building their big square skyscrapers with bamboo. (Yeah they have some amazing buildings, so does everyone else, let's not get into a dick measuring contest because that would be too ironic.)

As you say, the west is totally repugnant in this regard. The USA exemplifies this. But it makes me sad to see others repeat our mistakes.

There's no fair measure, there's only equivalent ones.

Measuring per-capita is only fair if the capita is making the decisions.

That's not a "but", if anything, it's an "and".

Learn to read. Five months of deflection is not due to a single employee. It's due to a single employer.

For a small model (think handwriting recognition, say, 6x8 pixels), it is actually possible to construct a formal proof that the model will correctly identify digits and characters correctly. However, it is usually more expedient just to test with a large sample of typical inputs. In such cases, an error ratio smaller than what a human would produce, and the low risk of failure makes this approach acceptable.

However, for LLMs and models of the size typically used in self driving, it is practically impossible to verify the model (think heat death of the universe) using formal methods. The best that one can do is identify the desired outcome and perform statistical tests to determine the error percentage. When it comes to applications such as criminal sentencing, self driving, and applicant selection where mistakes expose the model user to substantial liability, AI may be more appropriate in an assistive role where a human must be in the decision loop. Even so, there are yet a large number of AI applications where mediocre performance (i.e. good enough, with occasional errors) is in fact good enough to justify the cost savings.

It is programs like the one proposed here which represent a structural danger to society: because of doctrines like sovereign immunity, a state which certifies a model as "safe" does not actually have any responsibility for the harm caused by such a representation. That is, a company which relies on the state's safety certification can avoid liability for harm caused by the model, and the state has neither the responsibility nor the incentive to test the model in an intellectually honest and formally rigorous way. Thus, the cost of testing the model is borne by the state, the liability for mistakes is borne by the public at large, and the disproportionate profit such an arrangement facilitates accrues to the benefit of private corporations.

"Huang is being investigated, Trump reached out to him directly (not the investigating bodies, the subject of the investigation), and asked his friend"

fuck this posting delay on desktop is so stupid, only the absolute lowest-wits need 20 seconds to think of something to say on this turd

Guaranteeing that AI won't cause harm is a matter of making sure it can't control anything that could cause harm. Think air gap. Think novelties, jokes, etc... There are many good uses for AI that literally can't harm someone, but I strongly suspect NY intends something a bit more nefarious and needs the imprimatur of an official state agency to secure the trust of the public.

"Their prophet married a 6 year girl and raped her when she was 9. In the west we shit on (child) rapists while Islamists celebrate and pray for them."

But no, you don't. If you did then you could claim some moral high ground, but you support the marriage of children to adults under Christianity which is going on in the USA right now, so you are factually in favor of child rape, and you only complain about Islam because of your racism.