...Modern ejector seats cause spinal injuries from which full recovery is "unusual". Smashing the spines of pilots might not be the most effective way to boost morale.

$22,000 per hour. The F35 will be nearer $42,000 per hour. These are under-estimates, as they do not include price hikes, crashes that close businesses, crashing into businesses, crashing into heavily-populated sports centres, etc.

Not really, the government would in such a scenario tell the AI firms they just got bumped to the back of the queue, because power for the general population is more important. The alternative is the population riots and that will not work out well for those in charge of the AI firms if they kick up a fuss. Especially in the US were the mob will be armed with guns.

That is a bad example. The height of the wall was sufficient to stop the site being flooded. What they didn't figure in was the land dropping over one metre in height, so all of a sudden the wall was no longer high enough. The bigger issue was having the backup generators in the basement, which is a dumb idea were ever you happen to be when their failure in a disaster situation has such dire consequences.

Whether we like it or not, whether we use Windows or not, Microsoft is going to insist on adding the tax whether the PC comes shipped with Windows or not. This is illegal bundling, Microsoft has essentially ignored prior rulings, and it's pretty much a certainty the courts will be fine with this.

"How did you get hired?"
"I was top at Fortnite. You?"
"Combat flight sims."

"Damn, two Boeings just crashed over an oil refinery on city limits and took out half the city."
"Did you remember to save your position beforehand?"
"Yeah."
"The reload and continue from there. No-one will notice."

I love computer games. I have XPlane 12 and many scenery packs. I rank well on Elite:Dangerous. From the sounds of it, the FAA would see me as over-qualified. In reality? There's no way in hell I'd be taking those kinds of risks with real lives. There's a huge difference between having good reflexes and a good eye, versus having the complex 4D spacetime relationship mental models needed for robust air traffic control.

The problem with that argument is that I can point to countless examples were the rest of the world have or are busy adopting superior systems in also sorts of areas that the USA has refused to adopt is busy resisting to the last on what amounts to nothing more than it's foreign so commy.

To keep it on road transport theme, I would mention road signs, roundabouts and emergency sirens as just three examples of the rest of the world using science to improve our lived experience and the USA resisting because it was not invented here.

An interference model for detecting numberplates could easily be run on a low price TPU. However even more traditional image processing using hidden Markov models would still be AI. Remember boys and girls not all AI is neural networks.

The problem with those sorts of studies is that they can make a computer system less productive *if* you have some experience in using the system. The problem them becomes very quickly *most* users have *some* experience of using the system and it becomes less productive.

For example most sensible people consider that using LaTeX to enter mathematical formulas is wildly more productive than using Word *provided* you have put in the effort required to learn how to use it.

Consequently there is no one best system. The problem is UI studies have a tendency to focus on making systems easy to use for beginners not more productive for those with some experience.

My read was less that on in a million plates are read incorrectly. Perfectly believable, the Flock cameras are probably reading hundreds of millions of plates a day. The ~â..." error rate is that the number of plates flagged that are wrong, which is partly because a small number of plates are repeatedly being flagged incorrectly.

Two things can simultaneously be correct.

Yes but you have to remember that the idea that any other country could have come up with a better standard for number plates goes against the American exceptionalism that the USA is the greatest and best and everything and it's consequential near total refusal to adopt any standard that was "not invented here" even if it is demonstratively superior in every way.

The UK have also removed certain characters from [A-Z] [0-9] from our numberplates as they can be too easily confused. So for example you cannot confuse a 1 and I if your numberplates simply don't have I's in them. Same for 8 and B. O and 0 etc. It does reduce the number of possible plates you can produce but with six digits in the plates there are hundreds of millions of possibilities.

IMHO I would also be an idea to include a check character, that would virtually eliminate mistakes in a stroke going forward.

You see, Linus has embraced transhumanism and is testing out the new kernel as a supplementary brain function, using MOSIX to offload all of the irritable comment generation at yet more nonsense on the mailing list to an Elizabot that he has written specifically to do this. This saves his actual brain for real work.

AI is not currently capable of performing any meaningful conceptual abstraction, it is only capable of very basic mechanical abstraction. Abstraction is itself multi-dimensional. Nor is there any indication that AI could ever perform multi-dimensional abstraction or multi-dimensional decomposition. Precious few humans are capable of it either, but some can.

No, AI would need humans because the best system is not a pure system but a hybrid system, and that means transhumanism with AI operating as an additional brain function rather than as a replacement for a brain.

Tool calling is, yes, but the current approach to it is (a) overt not transparent to the user, (b) not designed for the purpose I've outlined, and (c) not remotely good enough for the AI to be able to manage data through such tools.

Yes, you can connect an AI to a PostgreSQL database. Whoopee. Not even close to an AI detecting via classifiers that some of the data is relational in nature, transparently setting up its own PostgreSQL database in response, and using that proactively as an additional way to examine the data. You would need to explicitly set up the constructs, explicitly set up the databases, explicitly tell it when, where, and how to use the database, and if that particular usage conflicted with a way the AI actually worked, the AI would not be able to use it effectively. That's not remotely close to what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is much, much deeper than that. AIs lose focus when there is too much information currently in the system. Absolutely nothing stops an AI from using a document database as a virtual memory in which it can page in and out conceptual spaces so that the focus on any given step of a problem concerns just the problem. Other than such a concept not existing yet, which is kind of a limiting factor. But you need to know what connects to what. The AI could use an ontology reasoner for that, or a relational database, or an external graph. But you cannot provide those tools and you cannot configure them, for the simple reason that the AI is the only entity with any detailed map of how the underlying neural net is connecting those ideas up.

The AI itself has to select the tools, has to configure the tools, has to do all the work. Which means YOU cannot use any sort of API. YOU should have no involvement in the underlying mechanisms needed for the internal NN housekeeping.

And that's your other error. You're assuming this is about user data. No. It's about housekeeping operations within the NN itself to maximise functionality, it has nothing to do with the user side of things at all. If the user was capable of setting up dynamically structured databases that mutated with each step of a decomposed analysis, you'd have done everything the AI would be doing and you wouldn't need the AI to begin with.

You cannot do this work, you cannot even assist in this work, it has to be dynamic and it has to be utterly invisible to the operator.