Stupid and malicious are different.

The offered narrative is "let us build the data center AI control grid now because it's only temporary until we can move it to space".

You and I both know that's not thermodynamically possible with known science.

So do the people saying it.

We have a real problem with Positive Projection where we are decent folks so we project that on people who are not. That is an error even though most people are decent folks. The parasites are not.

I only recent learned that Hanlon's Razor comes from a humor book about Murphy's Law from the early 80's. It's not some ancient axiom of wisdom - it is used by the Cluster B disordered to mask their nefarious deeds.

If you talk about this with most people these days you'll get the Positive Projection script executed like an autorun.

Everybody should turn off autorun whenever possible. Major risk.

> Gardasil

It's sold as an "HPV vaccine" but it only targets about 4% of HPV viruses, specifically the ones most likely to cause cervical cancer in women in their 40's. It's described in the Merck literature.

Not even the HPV most likely to cause throat cancer in men (usually acquired from lady parts).

If cancer treatment advances at the current rate (AI discovery docs estimate 9 years for the supermajority) it's possible that the Gardasil fatalities will have killed more teens than prevented deaths of women.

It's like a Drake Equation for cancer - the coefficients will determine the narrative either positive or negative. This is where free choice is ethically mandated.

Unfortunately there is considerable religious fervor about such things so very few people wants to scientifically discuss nuances.

Say more; be specific.

What is missing or broken?

Why isn't EU sponsoring specific features and fixes it needs?

Or assign some of their own developers to submit pull requests.

Or hire *some Europeans* who are unemployed because their war is killing industry.

Let's hear from their project manager instead of faceless wankers and the people responsible for sales.

The propagandists say that their competitors confuse people and they won't believe the propaganda anymore.

The Horror, the Horror.

We'd all be trillionaires if we could see that far into the future with sufficient clarity.

Consider whether a Depopulationist psyop is more or less likely than that The End Times have finally come (unlike the previous thousand pronouncements).

People who are anxious and scared are easy to control. Have a look back at Al Gore's slide deck and see how much they really knew.

Though Competitive Advantage should not be discounted as a very real driver of evolutionary fitness.

The poorest people in the world somehow manage to not extinct their 4B-yr old germ line.

Many Westerners have personal preferences greater than familial survival. It's been trained into them but only in times of mass starvation has this ever happened before in history.

I use a bluetooth page turner pedal for sheet music.

I think it was $14 for two buttons. Maybe there's a third, I only ever use forward and back.

$40 is wild.

They probably need another trillion dollars and this time they'll do it right!

No accountability, no consequences for failure.

That's not the issue - insurance companies have no problem giving insurance to humans which have "individual learning capabilities."

The problem is that while insurance companies can extract compensation from humans - essentially they can coerce the humans to work "for them" to pay them back - they can't get compensation from the AI, and there isn't a good framework to get compensation from the AI developers.

The issue isn't that the AI learns - the issue is that our legal framework doesn't have a good way to get "compensation" from errant AI - because the AI itself doesn't care if it gets shut off. You can't hold the AI itself "liable" like you can a person. So until we change the liability framework, we'll be stuck. This isn't a technical problem, so much as a social one.

It's just fear porn.

```
McDonald's tracks adherence to the platform, and notes any deviations from the algorithm's price recommendations
```

Which is what you'd want to do for any prototype system.

They should then track foot traffic, gross sales, and net profit and see whether the recommendations increased or decreased them when followed.

Having a control group is valuable, not a target for punishment. If McD Corporate were sane, anyway (cf. ice cream machine fiasco).

The one near me was charging over $6 for fries three years ago - I can't imagine what it's up to now. Haven't been back since.

Reuters is mostly jschool grads emoting and distributing propaganda.

> Amazon mechanical turk slaves

What does 'slaves' mean to you in this context?

Part of self-driving cars being safer than people is that they don't drive "very close together" - they follow at the appropriate following distance and speed for the lines of sight. This alone accounts for a large portion of the improved safety performance of these systems.

Autonomous cars are actually very good at the driving task. Where they fail is when they encounter situations that are "abnormal" and I think the industry has a problem here; state of the art is either to train specifically for every situation (impossible in the limit) or to kick the decision to a human in a support center somewhere. Things like emergency vehicles, school buses, farmer markets, construction zones, etc.

The industry needs to figure out how to get their systems to "get confused, then reason their way out of a situation."

This long tail is where humans still do better - when there is some "new" scenario, like a particular combination of debris in the roadway, on a Tuesday, with gawkers, during a fireworks display. You will never be able to "train" your way out of that - you need the correct structural formulation for the problem space.

The big takeaway I have from their study is that their study areas - major metropolitan centers - is that cities have way, way worse than average incidents per vehicle mile travelled.

I mean the national average is only something like 1.25 fatalities per 100M miles, injuries only 75 per 100M miles, and "all" incidents like 140 per 100M miles. But the benchmark numbers on the linked websites range from 200 to almost 700 injury incidents per 100M miles in those cities.

Like, if you are using the average number, you can't even reduce the number of incidents by 841 over 271 million miles, because the expected value is only 203. You have to have a rate of at least 300 injury-incidents per 100 million miles to reduce by 841 at over 271 million miles. So really, their results are driven by San Francisco, Austin, and Atlanta.

Their confidence bands are also pretty low; for example they quote 2 serious or greater injuries in San Fran, which on 82 million miles there is a rate of "0.02 per million miles". But 2 injuries is not really enough to make a statistical inference.

Least of all because all the miles are with different versions of their software - you can't make any predictive claim.

Statistics never lie, but you can make them say whatever you want...

The hypnosis:

```
If I am not smart enough to understand what my code will do I am not responsible for very bad things it does under CFAA. Even if I know it is likely to do very bad things.
```

The psyop is that it is an independent intelligence free from the societal constraints of Justice.

This is analogous to some head of a corporation going, "We just dump the waste in the drain that says 'waste', the PCB's in the River aren't my fault."

Both groups are paying off governments to look the other way. We won't find justice there, apparently. (do prove me wrong, that would be great)