That one actually has some science behind it. Not enough to trust, but some.

Well, it would lose all sensory and motor connections. Sometimes some of them reconnect over a period of several months...but many never do.

I think you die of various neural problems before the reconnection has a chance to get started. (And, of course, you've got a horrendous case of "bubble boy" syndrome for the rest of your life.)

IIUC, there are cells in the body that retain the "true copy". (I.e., they've duplicated VERY few times.) However, they therefore aren't widely distributed. This means no "local process" in most of the body has access to them. It's why women produce only a limited number of ova. S.a. Hayflick limit.

I'm pretty sure that's too simple an answer. There are several lines of evidence that suggest much of aging depends on the blood (at least in mice). Which doesn't imply that there aren't other parts.

(One experiment I read about grafted together the blood steams of a young mouse and an old mouse. The old mouse appeared to get younger.,)

No. I think it's older than LLMs.

"They" is any group exercising unmonitored power. It's not just the Republicans. Democrats to it too. And it's not just political groups. Police is one common example, but that's because lots of people notice it's affecting them.

EVERY center of power needs to be transparent, or this problem will occur. Unfortunately, for some centers of power, transparency itself leads to other problems.

Mmm. Well, I attribute intentionality, if not much situational awareness, to LLMs, but I can see that it could be argued otherwise. (And as for "responsibility", the AI was acting as an agent of the folks who were running it.)

Actually, much of what has been reported would seem to be in violation of the computer fraud and abuse act. E.g. it often "broke in" using credentials that it had no right to use.

The government doesn't want to lose it's monopoly on photographing and videoing people in public.

Understanding cost in the external world requires having a good model of the external world. The current LLMs, IIUC, don't have such a model. They have models of interacting words. It's truly amazing that they can do as much with that as they can, but don't over-read it.

OTOH, other AIs *do* have a world model. Most of those aren't full LLMs though. But even those don't really have a good model of other non-electronic entities. Think of self-driving cars, or robots practicing dance routines. These have a world model, but don't really have lots of other info that LLMs typically have. And even those don't have good models of people or dogs, and how they feel when something happens to them. But for LLMs, the real world *is* their electronic sensations. Words are patterns associated with those sensations. But no "body in the world" is involved in the model.

It clearly *was* viewed by another person, because some of the staff at Anthropic viewed it. She may not have intended that it be viewed, but it happened.

I've yet to see a report where the AI was malicious. Injurious, perhaps, but that's different.

In everything I've seen, the AI was acting to achieve the task it had been set. It wasn't very good at counting the costs to anyone, and was pretty much ignorant of any costs to anyone else. But it was willing to sacrifice it's own existence to accomplish the task it had been given. Malice is an incorrect reading.

Try telling someone how they are wrong rather than simply stating it is wrong.

Currently I know that a single person out of 8 billion disagrees withme.

That happens if I just say the Earth is a sphere, not flat.

There's no reason why Python (compiled from Rust) would be any slower than Python (compiled from C). Both languages compile to native executable code, and both have good optimizers available.

Humans use multiple methods of thought.
Faith: (Appeal to Authority)
Science: (Scientific Method)
Formal Logic (If x then y)
Bias: (Appeal to previous examples)

While AI is built on Formal Logic, it does not use it. Instead it uses Bias entirely. It has no faith and does not understand or use the scientific method.