Phase 1 trials can consist of as few as twenty subjects, although fifty is more common. It's basically there to make sure you don't kill or injure hundreds of test subjects in the larger trials with the dosage and protocol you intend to use. Only about a quarter of drugs which are rejected as unsafe are rejected at Phase 1. There have been drug trials halted because they killed dozens of people *in phase 3*.

Ultimately just 10% of drugs that pass Phase 1 get approved. The rest are either too dangerous or too ineffective.

The compassionate use exception carved out by the Federal Try Act is specifically targeted at people who have little or nothing to lose. It kills a few people who were going to die anyway, but in a few very rare cases it may have saved a few individuals. So you can argue from a utilitarian standpoint that it's ethical to make this exception for terminally ill patients because the exception does more good than harm. But extending the exception to people who aren't terminally ill will do more harm than good, just going by the number of treatments that prove unsafe *after* Phase 1.

That's why I'm not investing in AI stocks. I don't believe the pitch the companies are making to investors. That doesn't mean that LLMs aren't a tremendous technological achievement that could be very useful.

Whether it's a net good for mankind, I'm skeptical. But as long as it exists, use it cautiously and wisely.

Again, I'll repeat: if you believe that, you clearly read nothing.

What I've been saying all along is that the biggest problem with the technology isn't going to be the technology per se. It's going to be the people who use it being lazy, credulous, and ignorant of the technology's limitations.

The bottom line is that as it stands LLM isn't any good for what these bozos are using it for: saving labor creating a brief. You still have to do the legal research and feed it the relevant cases, instructing it not to cite any other cases, then check its characterization of that case law for correctness. In other words, you still have to do all the hard work, so it's hardly worth using if all you are interested in is getting an acceptable brief quickly.

But if you *have* done all that work, it's quite safe to use AI to improve your brief, for example tightening up your prose. You can use it to brainstorm arguments. You can use it to check your brief for obvious counter-arguments you missed. There's absolutely nothing wrong with lawyers *who know what they're doing* using AI to improve their work. It just can't *do* their work for them.

I thought of provisioning as an obstacle, but it's not necessarily a difficult one for an actor with "national means" to overcome. Most likely none of the low-cost service providers who provide service for things like GPS trackers would bat an eye if you had a shell company set up a few hundred or even a thousand devices. Just tell them you're doing vehicle tracking or something like that. China's MSS could even set up a bogus cell tower near their target sites, stringray style. The main target of such an attack wouldn't be the device itself, or even the facility, but the grid, possibly in conjunction with another type of attack to impede recovery.

That said, I don't think that's what these things are there for. I think it's just a case of the vendor finding it convenient to sell the same SKU to all its customers. But you're right, this is all just a conjecture. The possibility merits investigation, even if it's not likely.

While steel is one of the most recyclable materials there is, concrete isn't that great. Most concrete "recycling" would be more accurately characterized as "downcycling" -- using old crushed concrete for road beds for example. It is possible to reuse old crushed concrete as aggregate in new concrete, which does technically count as "recycling", but it doesn't address the single most significant environmental impact of concrete, the carbon emissions of cement production.

Anytime you propose replacing X with Y, both X and Y will have environmental impacts; you just think that the impacts of Y aren't as bad. This is a new material, and we can't quantify what its impacts will be, but they'll be there. Service life plays a role here too and we don't know what that is. If a beam made out of this stuff lasts as long as a steel beam, that'll almost certainly be a carbon footprint win, but if you have to replace it ten times it might not be.

Sure, industrial infrastructure commonly has remote monitoring and administration capabilities. Grid storage systems for example have to monitor battery and inverter health. EV chargers can often communicate to determine the most economical charge times.

In this case the devices included cellular radios that could bypass site network administrators completely. Again this is not necessarily nefarious, because there are legitimate use cases for this.

But if the capability is there, it should be shipped totally disabled unless the customer requests otherwise. A competent engineer could determine whether that's the case. Even if the cellular modem isn't provisioned with a data carrier, if it is operational an agent with national means could communicate with it stingray style. If it is physically possible for an unauthorized person with knowledge of the system to gain control of this equipment, somebody has some explaining to do.

You clearly read nothing.

Enjoy

(TL/DR: They're *generalizers*. They learn to *generalize* problems.)

No. AI tools are not collagers. That is not how they work.

Yes, they do "learn to think". (albeit in rather alien manners sometimes)

Nonsense. There are a specific set of *mature* Li-ion chemistries - namely, iron phosphate and NCA/NMC. There are no mature Na-ion chemistries. We do not know what kinds, if any, of Na-ion chemistries will mature to be competitive. Current low-volume production is not competitive. There is no non-subsidized Na-ion production that is at all price competitive with li-ion. Manufacturers readily admit this in interviews and quarterly reports. The hope is that with scale and chemistry advancements they will be. The collapse in lithium prices has sapped a lot of the optimism from the market about this.

I'll accept the coined word "talenteds". But you are not more "creative" just because you have a talent.

And for the record, most professional musicians today buy riffs or entire backing tracks from others and also outsource the mixing and mastering to third parties, so they can honestly lay off people for outsourcing part of their work to AI.

By "the results", you mean an entirely different, unprotected work?

Doesn't work. Your mislabeled data will stand out like a sore thumb on loss graphs. They'll automated ditch the bad labels, and potentially automated-regenerate new labels.