If most people like the slop then why stop them from getting any?

because you don't have any idea where it got its "facts" from.

With a link you can (roughly) judge the credibility of the source. I.e., did the "facts" come from published research or some nobody on social media. Or some known propaganda outlet.

So you agree you are being an idiot?

No I'm agreeing that you're a moron.

Do you need a working EUV mahine in order to build your first EUV machine?

Yes or No. Simple question. The GGGGP was saying you do not.

That is what you appear to be disputing and I agree with you that you are being an idiot for disputing it.

All you have is someone saying it is true.

Is that what you think? You really fail at reading. He's talking about making 2nm fabs not making 2nm chips.

What does "drive better than humans" mean? Drive better in all possible scenarios? That's likely impossible now and probably forever. Maybe driver better in a majority of scenarios weighted by occurrence probability? Maybe, but we don't currently have the technology to validate this requirement.

Indeed it's interesting!

There are obviously mistakes that SDCs will make that humans never will (ignoring sci-fi shit, I'm talking about the current state of the art), and things they'll be worse at.

There's also mistakes they won't make: they never get tired, impatient or angry. They never turn around to yell at (or beat, yep I've seen that) their kids while driving. Being more widely trained they won't lack experience driving with a find misting of unexpected liquid on the roads (hi LA you suck at driving in the rain) etc. They won't text. Won't try to punish other road users. Won't get drunk or high. And so on. Well they shouldn't. If SDC companies think they can skirt or edge over the law to get a competitive advantage they will, and now you'll have law breaking at scale (well kinda like regular drivers!).

And they can (Waymo, not Tesla) have superhuman senses, e.g. lidar and radar.

But... well it can be measured to an extent: you can measure deaths per billion km, and see if SDCs do better or worse. Though that can hide a lot of things. For example if they are utterly unable to cope with unexpected situations and stall blocking the roads, then deaths caused by blocked emergency services won't be attributed correctly to them.

Certainly any comparison to the worst drivers is useless.

Depends: I would assume (though common sense often isn't so YMMV) that the worst drivers are responsible for a much higher proportion of problems than the best. So let's say the SDC apocalypse eliminate the worst X% of drivers, but also flatten the best 100-X% down to X. I'd imagine that there is some value of X where this is a net improvement.

Question is what is X. Probably middleish I'd imagine since the worst X% do the most damage.

But of course also SDCs will always make different mistakes which makes it hard to evaluate because the X% level SDC won't really be like an X% level human.

I don't think the cherry picked examples of "SDC does something dumbass" because (e.g. in the UK, where we have some of the safest roads in the world) 1600 people die per year due to motor vehicle collisions a substantial number of those are due to utterly fucking stupid people (nearly 50% are alcohol related).

It's an interesting question. That of course centres around the mechanics of SDCs driving compared to humans. There are likely to be other damaging failure modes when you have 3 companies controlling almost all cars, where for example certain kinds of traffic management become impossible because getting google to agree to code for it is impossible and they somehow won't pay fines. Or you might have the "cruise forever if you can't find a parking spot" button which will will make traffic even worse because the roads are free to use and there'll be a mechanism to abuse free resources for personal gain even further.

This seems like essentially a variant of the Waluigi effect hypothesized here https://www.lesswrong.com/post... which had the advantage of a pretty fun name for the situation, and is worth reading

I've not seen that before. It was an interesting read.

Sounds like a good strategy for a studio that expects their big movie to be a box office flop.

The good should not be an excuse to introduce a bunch of bad, even if the good still outweighs it. The bad should be rigorously minimized. I am not against such cameras, under certain conditions:
1) Strict limitations on what they can be used for. That also sets limits on data retention and on who has access to it (absolutely no 3rd parties)
2) Audits and oversight of how the system is being used, with real consequences for violations. The benefits of each use case to be evaluated from time to time, insufficient benefit or too much opportunity for abuse means the system will no longer be used for that particular use case.
3) Ironclad security to ensure none of this data ever gets out.
And 0) Those limitations on use should be tested against a more fundamental set of (ethical) rules, to ensure that the use is not expanded from "protect the children" to "auto-fine jaywalkers".

Only problem is that I wouldn't trust most governments to get any of these points right.

Huh I agree with you, pretty strongly, about something!

Personally I think the right to privacy stuff is a little broken. It was fine to have no particular expectation of privacy in a public place because when those laws were written the only practical way to violate it was to have 1 person essentially stalking one other, and that doesn't scale. It's really expensive, so a few people might have their privacy violated in an unreasonable way but as a population it was fine.

We now have the tech to scale cheaply, so a well funded organisation can follow huge numbers of people all the time.

Depending on your views of private corporations, that may or may not be acceptable.

However, the temptation for the government is always too great here, and if that data is available they will use it legally or not. I think the only way to stop them is to make it much harder for companies to do panopticon surveillance in the first place.

This seems like essentially a variant of the Waluigi effect hypothesized here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/D7PumeYTDPfBTp3i7/the-waluigi-effect-mega-post which had the advantage of a pretty fun name for the situation, and is worth reading. . There's also some related prior work by Ball, Gluch, Goldwasser, Kreuter, Reingold, and Rothblum https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07341 which suggested that fundamental information issues or computational complexity issues meant that making an LLM AI "safe" from jailbreaks by having a less computationally powerful/less intelligent AI system look over its input would always fail, since one could construct inputs that would be complicated tasks or essentially hidden puzzles that the less powerful AI would fail at but would expand out by the more powerful AI into instructions/jailbreaks. Ball et. al's work is also discussed in detail in this Quanta piece https://www.quantamagazine.org/cryptographers-show-that-ai-protections-will-always-have-holes-20251210/ There's also some similar work by Rao, Choudhury, and Aditya https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.12702 which I haven't read in detail but seems also thematically very similar.

They also invented salmonella and body odor.

Fortunately God decided it was necessary to intervene and created his own political party to protect us from drag queens and people who take that "liberty and justice for all" kind of crap seriously.

You mean, like, a good one and a bad one?

Anyone want to buy a $100,000,000,000 data center at fire-sale prices?

"Needs more Excel training" should not be the answer to any problem.

I'm anticipating the first time I see the word roboticide in the news.

That is the most idiotic question I have ever heard.

Look in the mirror, bro.

The GGGP stated you don't need a working EUV machine in order to build an EUV machine and you have been arguing that point for like 5 posts now.

GGGP> You dont need 2nm tech to make 2nm tech.
YOU> Citation Needed.

also you:
"That's idiotic".

Yes. I 100% agree it is idiotic.