Hm. Perhaps this is a use of 'grifter' I wasn't aware of.

How is Geerling a "grifter"?

So you're saying that neither of the groups of people (one of which includes you) keep their eyes on the road. This directly contradicts your previous message. Cute.

Eyeline != focus. You're not keeping your eyes on the road.

It's What Plants Crave

It's easy to regulate AI art the state level.

"Any job offer for a job based in California must adhere to the following AI disclosure".

"Any mortgage offered in a Californian property must satisfy the following AI disclosure"

etc.

AI regulation need not be about regulating AI innovation; it's enough merely to make sure it's applied fairly. And almost all real-world applications are indeed local.

There's always money in the banana stand, Michael.

I used to work at Microsoft. My employment contract specifically called out a load of personal pre-existing projects, plus ongoing and future ones, and stipulated that MS would have no ownership nor claim. I did ask for these callouts, but they were happy to go along.

I'm pretty sure it's the division between the "shut up and calculate" point of view, and the one which seeks to /explain/ the rules for the calculations.
Quantum *mechanics* is pretty well accepted: it works under a great many circumstances!
It's also reviled as an *explanation*: it's hard to generalize the rules, and interpreting them in any palatable way (as, for example, explaining what is an observer and what it means to make an observation) is apparently impossible. Thus the enduring presence of people who are bringing back objections that the "shut up and calculate" response is a poor one. See, e.g. Carroll, Barandes, et alia.
Few physicists are happy with the Copenhagen interpretation, for the reason you mentioned and for many others. However, I note that you clearly have not given an alternative interpretation.

I'm a software developer. Part of AI is like if I had 200 interns working for me -- some of them smarter than me and already more knowledgeable about some areas, some of them not, none of them familiar with my team's codebase. There are real cases where I could get those 200 interns to do real useful work and would want to! e.g. if I create a very detailed playbook of how to make certain code improvements, ones that wouldn't be worth my time to do myself one-by-one, but if I had 200 interns and an automated way to verify that they did a good job, then sure!

The article says "manage a team of AI agents". Managing in this sense isn't like managing a human; it's like writing a shell-script to manage some bulk process.

Let's keep going! ;-)

"is." is not a verb; "is" is a verb.

You've put quotation marks around the period at the end of your sentence. You've also inconsistently punctuated "M.D." and "MBA", and have chosen to spell out "O.K." in your post subject.
Introspection is difficult!

Oh, those efficient Germans, always leaving out letters.

You're gonna start hearing a lot about this and soon.