Certainly. There even seem to be some US citizens, who go that way. Any pseudo-strong government will attract admirers, who look at the facade and miss the rot within. People seem to be attracted to leaders that act like they are strong and know what they are doing, even when the evidence clearly shows that they do not.

Apparently, many of the officers in the first wave were carrying full dress uniforms for the victory parade. So, yes, they expected no resistance.

In Russia he does. And Russian leaders that lose their reputation can also lose a lot more.

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The USSR conquered Ukraine after WWI and many Ukrainians fought against them in WW2. Ukrainian is very close to Russian, but it is distinct. More to the point, they have a cultural identity that goes back to czarist times and the Cossack states.

When Russia started this they were not expecting a war. They were confident that the Ukrainians would welcome them. Why they believed that is something I cannot answer. They then found themselves in much the same mess that the US is in the Middle East. It is a lot easier to start a war than to end one. Particularly if your leader has put his reputation on the line.

So move them to offices in Thailand or Viet Nam or a bunch of other places. You do not have to contract out the work, just create a local subsidiary.

So, instead of hiring these foreign workers and bringing them to the US, they will hire them and employ them in their home countries at even lower wages.

I see that there are people questioning whether he was deserving. I have no opinion on this, because I have no idea who else was nominated. Before criticizing a particular award, you should go back and look at some of the previous recipients. The Nobel Prize committees are just as fallible as any other committee system.

I was replying to the previous post, which refers to an ax murder. Exactly what laws have they broken? To break a law requires both an act and intent. Since AIs are not legally people, they cannot have intent. You would have to argue that their creators either had intent to break the law (very doubtful) and were willfully negligent (very difficult to prove).

I chose that point because that was the example that the person I was replying to chose. The basic point remains to prosecute someone you have to show that they have violated the law and also either intent or negligence. Proving negligence can be difficult and the AI companies can afford good lawyers. So far, prosecutors have not thought it worthwhile to act.

As far as we know, none of these programs have killed anyone yet. If they actually break a law, the company using them should be held responsible. Unfortunately, most of what it is doing is not illegal although it may be immoral.

Which is why string theory has not led anywhere useful.

Yes, virtually everything has an upside and downside. The question becomes, is the upside greater than the downside? So far, I am failing to see much upside from AI other than making a few people richer. The downsides are all around us. I do not think that problem is the concept of AI, so much as the way it has been implemented. I would support deleting all the existing models and starting over with a better development plan than feeding your model all the junk you can find and hope that it can locate the diamonds in the shit pile.

Who will score them, other police? The basic issue is that police, prosecutors, etc. are judged on how many arrests or convictions they get, not on how many are justified. It is more important to them to make an arrest in a case then to actually identify the guilty party.

We sincerely hope.