I found myself trying to untangle the web of privacy issues around Copilot, and it was just a mess. More than half the time you end up on the privacy policy of a "different copilot". I might want to know what it's doing with my code if I use various license levels of Copilot in Visual Studio, but most of what I can find is about Copilot in Office 365, etc. And on the pages themselves they don't even differentiate different Copilot products! It's quite frustrating, and I wonder if they did that on purpose.

Not even a Google Search. Literally just talking to it before giving the toy to their children to see if, asked to talk about something harmful, it does so or refuses. Are the parents in your mind too tired to literally speak?

Even a good movie with decent writing can still have pandering that, if not ruining the movie, at least breaks you out of the immersion. The best example I can think of is Avengers Endgame, where, in the middle of the big finale, all the female heroes had to get together for a girl-power moment. I saw that movie in the theatre, and discussing it afterwards even the women in our group said they rolled their eyes at that. It was just so difficult to maintain your "suspension of disbelief" when they do stuff like that.

You are right, which is ironically why we don't want to see blatant pandering in our movies, and is related to why Hollywood is failing.

"So we're going to put out everything that we think is of the highest quality"

Let us know when you start.

It worked for Bin Laden... for a few years anyway.

The thing is, we already have advanced refactoring tools. If I want to change a function signature and update it everywhere, that's a solved problem, as least in Visual Studio. It's right 100% of the time and I don't need to check its work in excruciating detail. Why would I ask an LLM to do it?

I think Novo Nordisk investors should be rightly angry with the management who let it lapse. But whatever.

You are correct. When asked about falling birthrates, almost everyone says the problem is financial. But that argument has a big hole through the middle of it: people had far more kids when people were a lot poorer in both absolute or relative terms. What people really need to raise kids is space. If you want to crash the birth rate, pack people together in apartments and high density housing. Apartments are fine for the first few years after you're out of school and building up some savings while working on your career, but then people need space to start a family. All these billionaires complaining about birthrates need to understand that efficient housing is the antithesis of 2.1 children per woman. Efficient housing should be inexpensive, so you can save enough for a down payment on a real house.

On exactly what the detector is capable of detecting. If they're looking, at any point, for radio waves, then I'd start there. Do the radio waves correspond to the absorption (and therefore emission) band for any molecule or chemical bond that is likely to arise in the ice?

This is so basic that I'm thinking that if this was remotely plausible, they'd have already thought of it. This is too junior to miss. Ergo, the detector isn't looking for radio waves (which seems the most likely, given it's a particle detector, not a radio telescope), or nothing obvious exists at that frequency (which is only a meaningful answer if, indeed, it is a radio telescope).

So, the question is, what precisely does the detector actually detect?

I'm not sure you understand what jailbreaking means in the context of AIs. It means prompts. E.g. asking it things and trying to get it to make inappropriate responses. Trying doesn't require any special skills, just an ability to communicate. Yes, I very much DO think most parents will try and see if they can get the doll to say inappropriate things before giving it to their children, to make sure it's not going to be harmful.

(Now, if Mattel has done their job right, *succeeding* will be difficult)

Musk would start up a company around this to produce more of his children since he can't find women willing to help him with that anymore.

You would be shocked how easy it would be for him to find women willing to have his babies, even now. Women have high standards, but "lots of money" beats most of them.

I think that a slow decline in population over many generations would be a reasonable goal. I worry more about a sudden decline, especially after such a large group is heading into retirement across the west. We're going to go through a period where there's a lot of elderly people who need care, and that's going to suck up resources, which leaves less resources for everyone else, and that naturally leads to a drop in standard of living. There's a huge difference between slow or even flat growth, vs. a declining economy. Human psychology reacts very violently to any perceived decline. That's why leaders are always obsessed with constant growth... it keeps people content. Decline causes violence and fighting over increasingly scarce resources.

Honestly, even if they can't jailbreak it to be age-inappropriate / etc, it's still a ripe setup for absurdist humour.

Kid: "Here we are, Barbie, the rural outskirts of Ulaanbaatar! How do you like your yurt?"

Barbie: "It's lovely! Let me just tidy up these furs."

Kid: "Knock, knock! Why it's 13th century philosopher, Henry of Ghent, author of Quodlibeta Theologica!"

Barbie: "Why hello Henry of Ghent, come in! Would you like to discuss esse communissimum over a warm glass of yak's milk?"

Kid, in Henry's voice: "That sounds lovely, but could you first help me by writing a python program to calculate the Navier-Stokes equations for a zero-turbulence boundary condition?"

Barbie: "Sure Henry! #!/usr/bin/env python\nimport..."

People are ascribing the wrong motives to the manufacturers. What they want is money. What Barbie will be subtly trying to work into conversations is suggestions that she try to get her parents to buy her playhouse, car, friends, fashion accessories, etc etc.