Just be careful; a few old IBM sites had toxic waste problems. It sounds like they were just turning off the lights and water and walking away from these.

One woild hope everything was remediated but I wouldn't bet my own safety on it.

Yeah, that's why they mentioned the ancient Sony camera he lifted.

"Crime with a gun" is a separate crime according to NY.

SCOTUS will strike those down eventually. It's like saying "crime while praying" if it's a right.

Obviously he wasn't using the gun to jack a Betacam. He was probably worried about crackheads in there for the copper.

Well quite. Either making an AI by copying something is copying in which case they're a bunch of criminals ready to go to prison for a thousand years according to how it works for peons, or it's not in which case the Chinese are also doing nothing wrong.

They want it both ways,

Utter fuckers.

Do they retain all their training data? can they store all that? - i thought they were using all the internet and massive piracy?

The web is being polluted with slop so.... I would think China could get around all copy-protection and have an advantage in data collection outside of the slop invested parts of the web. If the USA AI corps were not violating the law, they'd be trying to scrape from China's bots who don't have their legal limitations... Is the old web even that valuable to mine in the 1st place? From what I've read these AI are pretty amazing when reduced to a relatively small domain data set; like all journals and books on 1 topic. Have you not tried to research something in depth on the web and found it to be severely lacking compared to books and journals?? Even online lectures are just highlights from textbooks... Well, when you look to the book... I've spent years reading on the web on a topic for entertainment then tried a book only to find it had everything I learned all in 1 concise place that would have taken a fraction of the time and effort... and without all the filtering and correcting of know-it-all blowhard slop and that was before we automated windbags with AI.

Tech makes things worse. It's like a drug. Opioid... It has targeted controlled good use cases but outside of that it's bad stuff. Everybody's answer to the problems it creates is to get more tech...at at least suffer until the next update/version... People were already getting more stupid, especially in the USA now we have AI and already we have studies showing it does just that... If you think things are stupid now...

With a 15% drop in PhDs ,science going down hill , and CS people leaving or souring on the evil of the corps here... I think these tech bros are quite self inflated as to their importance and how close they are to the end game. They are not going to get their huge break-thru monopoly they are racing towards like mad which looks more like a cover for a Ponzi scheme hoping to become a real business before it collapses. 80% of the effort is for the last 20%. They are probably not even at the last 20% and even then, their "AGI" could take centuries to get the last 5% of it (if you can even measure it well enough know when you are at 95%... or even at 80% progress. Assuming, you know what 100% even is!)

The military implications are obvious. Think Ukraine. If you suspect the enemy is trying to infiltrate on a dark night along several kilometers of frontline, you light up the scene while launching a bunch of low-cost FPV drones, and those infiltrators are about to have a bad day.

You *can* spot infiltrators in the dark with IR cameras, but it requires much more expensive drones and isn't usually as effective, hence the preference for night operations. Plus, there's IR camouflage, with varying degrees of success. But it usually makes you stand out like a sore thumb under illumination (you're basically wearing a tent).

The students had a problem to solve, they used AI to solve it, and it appears to a very high standard.

If this happened in a work environment everyone would be happy itÃ(TM)s saved time and cost, and delivered a solution.

Because the goal/course is to learn a particular topic, not to use AI to solve basic problems. Yeah AI can do better than noobs at many tasks, but you don't become a non noob by using AI to do all the tasks. You remain a noob with AI forever.

The professor doesn't want the problem solved because he doesn't know the answer. It's not like your hypothetical job in that regard. He wants the students to learn stuff and get better.

By far the best people using AI are the ones that know their shit and have learned it and can use AI effectively but don't let it's slop shittiness dominate.

I took a few years of French, got a B being able to neither speak, write nor read it. Or understand it spoken. I could basically wing it on a few words and with what crossover there is with English. Didn't cheat, but frankly no idea what you have to not do to get a C.

mon pere est un poubellier

aw yeah he's still got it. B level French right there!

He was not by the way.

If everyone works against the system, the system has a problem. And the problem is not, that the students are cheating, but that cheating seems to be the best option for them ...

Define best I suppose?

The problem is a lot of students lack motivation to do the really hard thing, and are easily distracted. I was one of those, I would have been completely fucked in the era of AI I suspect. I was also at a university where I could get just the right kick up the arse someone like me needed and I had friends who ultimately helped.

I suspect cheaters wouldn't do great under the system I had with AI. Why? Well "homework" a.k.a. tutorial sheets were absolutely 100% mandatory and you went to tutorials a few times a week with tutors who knew you and would talk to you about the work and could ultimately kick you out if you didn't do the work. Unless you are good at bullshitting someone who can spot bullshit upside down, sideways and back to front you will be caught (collaboration is not discouraged in the slightest).

Exams are graded. You need to pass the first year ones, but they don't count to your final grade (provided you pass and are still there).

Problem with that system is it's expensive as fuck, requires deep institutional buy in and exists only in a few places.

Fortunately it kicked me into shape. By the time finals rolled round I had actually (for the first time in my life) put real hours into revision. I spent the whole summer grinding 3 hour maths papers under timed conditions then marking myself from the (often hilariously sparse and frequently hand scrawled) mark sheets which were available for old papers.

I did need to be motivate, taught and slightly threatened to reach that point. It didn't come naturally to me. It certainly benefited me however.

If the argument can be proved that they ruined the minds of an entire generation using a massive AI/Big Data model running at n terraflops by deliberately addicting children during the crucial neuronal pruning period of their lives, that is at a minimum going to cost the society tens of trillions of dollars and restitution would be far more than the proposed fines.

Nobody gets a second chance at that pruning stage, at least in this lifetime.

Their profits may be far lower than the damage they caused, but that characteristic is always true of parasitic entities.

This is basically the whole point of the Island of Pleasure warning in Pinocchio.

It remains to be seen what can be proved in Courts but the DSM-6 won't be kind to their arguments as outlined in TFS.

I'm having a bit of trouble working up any sympathy, as the saying goes.

The idea is probably from 1950's comic books but the tech seems brand new since they don't need any landing legs and use a net-on-frame architecture.

People should pay attention because they didn't have orbital technology thirty years ago and now they have a space station, reusable rockets, and are about to have a Moon base.

And possibly ultra-long flighttime 'drones' that can fly over Picatinny Arsenal unimpeded; that much is uncertain. We have no explanation for their energy budget (at least white-world).

Having a country run by engineers rather than professional thieves who hire engineers to justify pillage has certain advantages (and disadvantages).

Let's not get too overconfident.

This is a small prototype, not a full-scale mirror.

Also, ignoring that, pretending light brighter than the full moon is useless is... silly? For generating power, sure, but for illumination, it absolutely is not.

so driver-assist isn't a thing.

I think you have misunderstood the OP. The cars are remote controlled with very fancy driver assist for the remote driver. IOW, they run on assist say 99% of the time and then the driver (remote, not a passenger) has to step in.

That feels like an odd thing to be frightened of. It's not Mars where there are minutes of latency. Why would the Philippines - specifically - be any more (or less) concerning than if the drivers were in a building a kilometer away from the vehicle?

Neither is great per-se: suspect it would be quite hard to pilot a car well using a remote link (eyes are still surprisingly good compared to cameras).

Secondly, yeah the Philippines is worse. It's 13000k away meaning ~0.1s lag just due to the speed of light, never mind network lag etc. There's also going to more of that due to more hops.

Thirdly, well OK, US driving standards are terrible and the test is almost impossible to fail so no real loss there compared to a Philippines trained driver.

Okay, I'm no fan of these things and wouldn't volunteer to ride in one but really, this is exaggeration. The actual safety records have shown they're marginally better than human drivers. Sure, there are outliers, exceptions and downright frustrating things like what this article is about but as far as I've had any information, they're just that... outliers. Human drivers are the ones I really worry about, personally.

But that also makes no sense: if they're safety record is barely better than humans, then they're basically the same level of worry.

I've long been putting forward the idea that self driving cars ought to be more safe, because humans are shit. But there's more it turns out than just direct safety. If they're causing real problems with emergency vehicles at a rate worse than humans, then that will cause harm, but not in the car crash sense.

Anyway whoever thought they're the future of city transport needs their head examined, frankly. Or really has a fetish for sitting in traffic.

The endless scroll is predatory at every moment.

It even reloads when you stop for a while. Switch to a different tab, do something else for five minutes, come back - it reloads and refreshes everything. Why? Because that activates a primal fear in your brain that you're losing something, missing something that might've been important, so your instinct is to NOT divert your attention elsewhere.

In theory I would agree, but the issue here is that social media platforms intentionally compromise your ability to make decisions. That's what the addictive pattern is all about. You could at any moment decide to stop scrolling and get back to work or life - but everything in there is designed so that the decision is made for you and bypasses any critical thinking paths in your brain.

And while I'm the first to agree the politicians are sleazebags and are the first ones that need much tougher regulation and laws, it's a fact that laws in this area actually do work. Anti-smoking laws have reduced smoking, for example.