Does not matter in this case, if they don't host an online version of it. My impression is that Siemens wants to shut down the project completely.

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....

If Siemens does not re-distribute them, then Siemens does not violate any copyrights on them. Only if Siemens would continue to distribute binaries of OpenRadiuss to customers, they would be in violation.

Or: We eliminated the positions necessary to merge the changes coming from the outside, and we will support the customers in house, if there are any paying customers at all. After that, we will close the project for good.

This is all about getting us to have warm fuzzy feelings for our Flock protectors. Probably so we are willing to report the vile criminals who vandalize them to steal the valuable metals and precious SSD, HDD and memory components inside.

I'm still impressed that the Teams web client can't edit a message with an emoji in it without messing up the keyboard controls and often corrupting the message and losing data. It's had this bug for years. It's literally a messaging app where you can't reliably send messages.

Ever since deep-fakes became practical, artists and others should know they may be asked to show their work.

These days that means keeping all intermediate materials and revisions. If possible, time-stamp them in a way that is very resistant to being accused as being faked. There's 20th century precedent for creating immutable, time-stamped records.

Should artists have to prove a negative - prove they didn't use AI? Whether they should or not, the reality is these days they do, and any artist paying attention to the world should know this by now.

While in general, I agree with your sentiment, you mentioning the Dunning-Kruger effect is not appropriate here. Dunning and Kruger (1999) does not claim incompetent people would consider themselves above the experts. It's just that incompetent people do no consider themselves as incompetent as they really are, and competent people don't understand how far above the laymen their knowledge is. But both would agree, that the expert knows more about the topic than the layman, and both would sort themselves in the right categories.

You could consider the effect of Dunning and Kruger (1999) as a "mental regression to the mean".

If the seller knows the chip cannot be used for all of the normal purposes a typical buyer would expect it to be used for, that's a material defect. Failure to disclose could be grounds for a refund and for additional damages if his other components were blacklisted as a result.

Now, if the buyer got it third hand and can't prove the person he bought it from knew or should have known of the problem, he will be out of luck.

It's SpaceAmericaNet.

for warfare.