Microsoft trains their AI on corporate data, and most likely YOUR private data that you have to give your employer, produce for your employer under your real name using real information, and your LinkedIn.

Microsoft\s AI shit is a disaster waiting to happen because they've collected a lot of actual, sensitive, valuable data through Windows, Office 365, Teams and all the other cloudy garbage most companies use now, and because Microsoft has proven utterly incompetent with security for the past 50 years.

I'm much more worried about Microsoft's AI than Google's.

is a hallmark of fascism.

they sell themselves.

Either that or they're so unavoidable that people pretty much have to buy them, so crappy AI sales agents are quite enough.

When everybody's perception of reality is different, nobody can agree on any hard fact and society unravels.

he'll bear the shame for the rest of his life one day.

Bullshit web two-oh and AI jobs.

Of course they need proficiency in slop generators.

is to keep quiet about it.

these treacherous profiteering companies will be broken up, and their execs will go to jail, IG Farben-stylee. Personally, I can't wait for Zuck to go cool off in the slammer.

I swear to God, if I ever meet someone in the flesh who tells me something or someone has been slammed, blasted, destroyed, torched, trashed or grilled, I'm gonna punch them in the face.

It's impossible to read any headline without those toddler English-level verbs used and abuse all the fucking time these days. It's really annoying!

fund NASA to the tune of $1bn.

Of course, your South African Nazi friend wouldn't profit from that, which is your main concern really.

Always remember this when you talk about a company's "success".

Before biologists figured out how to "revive" pluripotency in adult stem cells - sometime in the 90's if memory serves - only embryonic stem cells could be use for research on stem cell therapy. And of course, if any therapy was to be discovered, only embryonic stem cells could be used for that also.

I remember back then, researchers were crying out that the potential of stem cell therapies was so great that it was worth harvesting embryos just to get the cell. That was obviously something of an ethical issue.

The pressure was huge to sidestep ethics and carry on with this wonderful new groundbreaking technology. Humanity couldn't pass up the opportunity to take advantage of this because of silly outdated ethical principles!

Well, the law stood firm, and it forced the researchers to fnd another way to get pluripotent stem cells from adult cells - something which is now commonplace: nobody harvests embryos anymore.

Same thing for AI: if it can't exist without stealing from everybody, then it shouldn't exist. Nobody should cave to the AI industry's demands, however much pressure they put on the legistlator. It will force AI professionals to resolve the theft problem and reinvent their industry to be compatible with common decency. Just like the stem cell industry did.

Caving to the AI industry's demands is the lazy way out of the problem, wouldn't foster innovation and would simply entrench theft.

An AI having access to the filesystem and rewriting the shutdown and kill commands? I call BS. Those commands are external. They're on the running platform - which the AI shouldn't even have any knowledge of.

Not to mention, the whole point of those command, even with traditional programs, is that they're accessible to the superuser only for modification, and the programs can't do anything about them - precisely so they can be stopped when they run amok.

Look, I hate AI as much as the next guy. But this whole unlikely story sounds like it was concocted to make AI sound sentient and nefarious.

They're nanosecond pulses. The instantaneous power is 8 kW but the power on average is around 5W, and that's only when it actively ranges, which happens for only a short time at each cycle.

And then if it's been asked to range too many times within a few seconds and the number of joules per second delivered exceeds the eye safety limit - some ISO standard I don't recall - the device refuses to range until the eye safety counter "cools off" so-to-speak.

With infrared, it's all about limiting the average power to avoid cooking the eyeball like egg white. The thermal inertia of an eyeball full of water is such that you can deliver quite a lot of power in one sitting for a short time, then stop, and it's perfectly safe.

The most powerful devices range up to 32 km and can actually damage their own sensor when ranging something close and reflective. They use 1550nm pumped IR lasers and each pulse pumps out 8 kW. They're eye-safe but they certainly aren't camera safe.