The Thing?

True digital sovereignty means having the resources in-country to manage your digital infrastructure. That means having the source and the skill-set to maintain it.

Not even the United States has that, not completely anyway.

But, like hand grenades and horseshoes, close actually counts.

>It's cheap and easy to audit OSS for malicious code with AI these days.

Economically feasible, perhaps. Cheap and easy? Perhaps for a sufficiently loose definition of "cheap and easy" but not by my dictionary.

If the AI model is trained on public-domain material or "commodity" material that doesn't contain real creative content along with creative content developed in-house or with the blessing/license from the creator/owner, that's fine.

But if it's importing creative and unique content from elsewhere without permission, that's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Probably lots of lawsuits.

Plus, a significant fraction of the game-buying public is looking to support creators financially, rather than just "buying a game."

Data wars YOU!

"Police officers in cities across the U.S. are quick to extol the virtues of [strike]real-time crime centers[/strike] [insert] panopticons[insert] as a game changer that helps them find missing children, monitor large events from the skies and scope out dangerous scenes before putting an officer in harm's way."

There, fixed that for you.

You know the video is going to be turned into a meme within minutes of it happening.

I predict that among the first memes will be Trump meme-ing it up by replacing the condemned man's face with that of Iranian leadership, saying "who wants to be next" or something like that.

... the Oscars not being shown live in theaters.

It may not be impressive, but it can be useful. If, by rapidly iterating over others' homework, you or your bot can prove X, then it can boost everyone's confidence of MY research that relies on X being true.

... until March 32nd.

This is basically what I said, but there are nuances. If a net of 100 lives are saved but there are a net of 100 more people who are put in a lifelong coma and have to be cared for round-the-clock in intensive care until they die of old age, and everything else is equal, I wouldn't count that as a clear-cut "win" or even a "win" at all. Depending on the net value you put on a life of someone living in a decades-long coma, you might count it as a win and that's fair. But I wouldn't.

That's why you run pre-production-quality hardware/software in test environments, and you plan for failure even in production environments.

Who cares if it can be used to build bombs, nuclear and thermonuclear power are and natural so they must be good for you.

Take AI-assisted self-driving cars. SUPPOSE for the sake of argument that self-driving cars CAUSE fewer accidents than they prevent, CAUSE fewer deaths than they prevent, CAUSE fewer serious injuries than they prevent, and the medical and other dollar costs of the accidents they CAUSE are less than the money saved by the accidents they prevent, it would be an overall win, EVEN IF some people die who would otherwise not die.

We don't have enough data to say if this supposition is actually true, but suppose it is.

The same is true for the "seatbelts save lives" argument: It's a net win, even if there are some edge cases where the use of a seatbelt may kill someone who might have otherwise survived.

Ditto medicines. Even for some common medicines that have been around for decades like penicillin, we know that overall they save lives but every now and then someone has a fatal reaction, killing a patient who was not at risk of dying.

IMHO, there are still too many unknowns with AI to let the industry go "full steam ahead" without putting in automated and human guardrails.

It probably was radioactive, just not harmfully so.

Speaking of radioactive things, I have this shipment of bananas....