Is if they confirmed your age by a behavioral maturity test. AI could monitor posts, and if it figures out that someone with an emotional age of 15 or older wouldn't have posted such a thing, you're cut off.

Art and cultural activity is a major sector of the US economy. It adds a staggering 1.17 *trillion* dollars to the US GDP. However that's hard to see because for the most part it's not artists who receive this money.

The actual creative talent this massive edifice is built upon earns about 1.4% of the revenue generated. The rest goes to companies whose role in the system is managing capital and distributing. Of that 1.4% that goes to actual creators, the lion's share goes to a handful of superstars -- movie stars and music stars and the like. This is not as unfair as it sounds, as it reflects the superstar's ability to earn money for the companies they distribute through, but the long tail of struggling individual artists play a crucial role in artistic innovation and creativity. Behind every Elvis there's a Big Mama Thornton, and armies of gospel singers who may have made a record or two but never made a living.

We can't run this giant economic juggernaut off a handful of superstars with AI slop filling in the gaps in demand. But maybe we'll give that a try.

To be fair, I mostly am as well, just with my cynic hat firmly in place. :-D

Yes and no. A transformer does have a gap, but it is a really small gap. Unless you have some robot arm that moves up and touches the underside of the car while it is parked, which, being a moving part, would be a frequent point of failure, possibly even making it very difficult to move the car without causing damage, you're going to have a very *large* gap, measured in inches.

The difference in minimum ground clearance between a Model S and a Cybertruck is 3.9 inches. That's a LOT of difference. To make this a general solution would almost certainly involve either major suspension changes to allow for standardizing the minimum ground clearance height or some sort of moving arm that reaches down to the charging pad, which is going to be a moving part that will end up being a frequent point of failure. So realistically, I don't think you'll see something that is 90% efficient across all cars. There's just too much variation.

Also, large HVDC charging stations actually convert to DC very early in the process and use batteries to level out the load over the course of the day to minimize demand charges from the power company. A wireless charging solution would involve an extra DC-to-AC conversion step and the resulting losses from that, so it's going to be significantly worse than 90% efficient when you factor that in.

If you're using apple music you can play it directly from the phone itself, you don't need itunes at all.

None of the woo "hurt him in terms of accelerating cancer". The problem is that he did that instead of actual treatment, and let a highly treatable cancer turn into a nearly-untreatable one.

That's why both vehicles and chargers are typically designed to let you quickly change out the charge connector. At least on Teslas, it's something like a half-hour job to swap out the charge port, and Tesla Mobile Service can do it without you even bringing in the car. And commercial-grade EV chargers typically have cords that are field-swappable. (Whether cheap consumer-grade chargers do or not, I couldn't say.)

Even if it is 90%, that's still an 11% increase in power consumption. Now consider a car. If you are driving two or three hundred miles per week, that might be 50 to 100 kWh per week. At California prices, that could mean an extra $2.50 to $5 per week, or $130 to $260 per year.

This is not a small amount of power loss we're talking about anymore.

You can be sure it's true because MS said it was.

Actually, LLMs are a necessary component of an reasonable AI program. But they sure aren't the central item. Real AI needs to learn from feedback with it's environment, and to have absolute guides (the equivalent of pain / pleasure sensors).

One could reasonably argue that LLMs are as intelligent as it's possible to get by training on the internet without any links to reality. I've been quite surprised at how good that is, but it sure isn't in good contact with reality.

How about if this one guys is 1 million times better off and he uses his insane wealth to install a raging fascist in the White House who ruins everybody's lives and threatens world peace?

I can easily do without the technological disruption this one guy, and all the other guys like him, bring about.

is fine if it doesn't create obscene inequalities and equally obscene psychopathic billionaires. If that's the cost of disruptive technology, I'm perfectly happy to hamper it.

When you mentioned "third partner" who cashed out early, I thought for a minute you were going to be talking about Ronald Wayne - what a life of bad decisions he made ;)

For those not familiar:

He got 10% of the original Apple stock (drew the first Apple Logo, made the partnership documents, wrote the Apple I manual, etc).
Twelve days later, he sold it for $800.
Okay, but he could still try to claim rights in court... nah, a year later he signed a contract with the company to forfeit any potential future claims against the company for $1500.
Okay, well, it's not like he had an opportunity to rethink... nah, Jobs and Wozniak spent two years trying to get him back, to no avail.
Okay, but he still had, like memorabilia he could hawk from the early days, like his signed contract. Nah, he sold that for $500 in 2016.
And that contract went on later to be sold for $1,6 million.
Okay, well, I'm sure he went on to do great things... nah, he ended up running a tiny postage stamp shop.
Which he ended up having to move into his Florida home because of repeated break-ins.
Which he then had to sell after an inside-job heist bankrupted him.

Jobs committed suicide-by-woo. He didn't "turn away from traditional therapy because it can't keep up with rapidly advancing metastasis", he turned away from treatment for a perfectly treatable form of cancer for nine months to try things like a vegan diet, acupuncture and herbal remedies, and that killed him.

Steve Jobs had islet cell neuroendocrine tumor. It's much less aggressive than normal pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The five-year survival rate is 95% with surgical intervention. Jobs was specifically told that he had one of the 5% of pancreatic cancers "that can be cured", and there was no evidence at the time of his diagnosis that it had spread. Jobs instead turned to woo. Eight months later, there was signs on CT scans that his cancer had grown and possibly spread, and then he finally underwent surgery, it was confirmed that there were now secondary tumors on his liver. His odds of a five-year survival at this point were now 23%. And he did not roll that 23%.

Jobs himself regretted his decision to delay conventional medical intervention.

If you mean that it would take research and development aimed in that direction, I agree with you. Unfortunately, the research and development appears to be just about all aimed at control.