Actually, I think every president at least since Eisenhower has gone beyond the written job description. I.e. used the executive branch to push things that Congress didn't authorize. It could quite plausibly be true even further back, perhaps back as far as G. Washington. Lincoln definitely did so, and so did FDR, but I don't know enough history to say that they all did.
I'll assume you are being serious.
1. Not all AIs are equivalent to ChatGPT.
2, Mistaking something that isn't a vulnerability for a vulnerability is relatively low cost.
3. Finding one vulnerability that's real can be extremely important.
NOTE: It doesn't NEED to be perfect. If it's "good enough" then it's good enough to be useful. Things that aren't vulnerabilities are relatively cheap to check.
P.S.: You shouldn't have needed this explanation.
How many of those young men feel like a college degree is the way to a better life?
Few. Especially the white ones. They know they've been iced out of their futures. They see the clown-world around them: prosperity is for non-whites and corrupt while females. Not them.
If you're hired specifically to develop a good AI, then you *should* push back against folks that want you do act in ways that would cause you to create an inferior one.
OTOH, for Meta to fail at this is devoutly to be wished for. I'd prefer almost anyone else.
A lot depends on how much you believe their explanation. I don't. In fact, I suspect the person making the explanation didn't know the reason, and either invented what they thought would sound good, or just read something someone else handed them.
Corporations don't have a "central mind" that knows all the things they are doing and why they do them. To get a reasoned answer takes a long time, and usually isn't what they want to deliver anyway.
Much xenophobe
So Trump
Wow
Since China was already trying to get local chips used rather than NVIDIA, they'll probably be in favor of this move.
Still more friendly than Mars, with more usable local resources
are phone calls and texts counted as social media therefore also banned?
You could be missing a brain, or just spent too much time on Instagram.
Usenet had crazy amounts of spam/scams. Not much of a difference, really.
Was that toward the end? Like late 90s? It used to be great. But usenet is where the term "spam" originated, referring to cross-posting to multiple groups.
If you took the planet's IQ today and compared it to what it was in the early 1990s, I'm convinced the global average would have dropped 30 points.
Global IQ is driven mainly by two things: improved nutrition and hygiene in 3rd world increasing the average, and higher birth rates among lower IQ populations decreasing it. However on a smaller scale, you are correct. There is indeed some evidence of a "reverse Flynn effect", where children in developed countries are less intelligent on average than their parents. Social media may well contribute.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3F...
MicroStrategy market cap, which has dropped to $54 billion since I wrote that.
Bitcoin does have some small intrinsic value. But it would be around the value of a ticket to the 1933 world's fair. Or an old newspaper with the headline "Dewey Wins".
Communism is not a workable system for more than Dunbar's number of people, and no country on earth uses it.
I really don't think it would work as an economic system, either, for the same reasons.
For groups smaller than Dunbar's number, that also have a charismatic leader, it can work quite well. But when that leader fails or retires, they tend to adopt a different system...or just fall apart.
That's not quite true. Occasionally some people in government do want to reduce the power of the government. For some reason they never end up making the decisions. This is because "power" is an instrumental goal that even an anarchist would desire if they wished to further their belief.
Vital papers will demonstrate their vitality by spontaneously moving from where you left them to where you can't find them.
