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.

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...

>You can't use the TV without accepting

You have to accept the top two, but it is perfectly usable without clicking accept on the bottom three. The top two I don't believe (though I haven't double checked) do anything malicious. The bottom ones do.

My server got compromised last week by this, Slashdot is quite far behind.

There's two new exploits in the Copy Fail class that do privilege escalation everyone should be worried about on shared servers. Copy Fail 2: Electric Boogaloo (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2F0xdeadbeefnetwork%2FCopy_Fail2-Electric_Boogaloo) and Dirty Frag (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FV4bel%2Fdirtyfrag)

I am rather disappointed that Ubuntu sat on these LPEs for a month without releasing a fix.

As it turns out, I and a lot of other people are willing to pay a fee to avoid seeing ads, so the shows do actually get funded anyway.

I hate ads with a passion, and miss the old days of the internet where people would get mad at you for advertising.

>The ruling elite has decided they do not want you to be educated

No, the ridiculous price of tuition is actually the result of the government encouraging people to go to college. They will pay whatever 'need' is, and 'need' is whatever the price of college is... so colleges keep raising the price, year after year, much higher than inflation.

It's not going to the professors, either. At my local state college, only 13% of the budget goes to professors (including benefits).

At community colleges here in California, 50% goes to direct instruction. Why? Because state law mandates the 50 percent rule. So community colleges are reasonably priced and often do a better job actually teaching with smaller classes than state colleges, but I guess we have a good 9-3 football team at state, so...

Hokkaido is not an "Island of Flowers". While the Furano Biei lavender fields are pretty famous, it is a small part of the island. Most of it is the same sort of forest and mountain terrain you'd see in Yosemite.

Or Kings of the Wyld, which is about an adventuring group that comes out of retirement for one last mission. One of them retired to be a city guard, another a king... pretty good story. Good mix of pathos and humor.

Good, I'm glad she's leaving. She's pushed the EFF in a bad direction, and forced John Gilmore (one of the founders of the EFF out).

I think the replacement choice is obvious - bring Gilmore back as Executive Director.

If you can do everything you need to do in the language, then anything else is fluff.

C++ supports a wide variety of paradigms and practices. You don't need to learn all of them, just one. And if you stick to modern C++, it is a clean and easy language.

>... what he thinks of modern C++ where the learning curve for newbies is now getting close to vertical. Speaking as a C++ dev of 25 years I wouldn't go near the language now if I was starting out, the number of paradigms and syntactic complexity has become ridiculous. And yes, if you're going to work on code written by others you do need to know and understand all these paradigms.

C++ is the easiest to learn now in, like, ever.

It's a mistake you have to know all the ins and outs of the language. The minimal set you need to do interesting things is quite small and it is much more usable than ever. I haven't had a memory leak or other memory issue since I switched over to modern C++ 10+ years ago.

Well, I had one once, but I did it deliberately to see if my tools (ASAN) would detect it. It did.

Hamming distance is the term you're looking for.

I use Firefox as my main browser.

I can't uninstall Chrome though, because so many sites break on Firefox (and like major sites too, like Gencon's website or really annoying things like hotel wifi login sites) I have to keep Chrome around to keep my computer usable.

I don't care about Pocket or these other useless things. All I want from Firefox is for them to figure out why their tech stack is incompatible with Chrome and fix it. Even if it's not standards compatible. Make a compatibility layer so I can uninstall Chrome spyware.

I was going to post a very similar comment: these people are not coders but they are project managers, and they are "employing" AI as their coding employees.

The thing is - there's "nobody" to take credit for the work, so the manager gets credit for something they didn't do. So it's definitely a skill and is work, but it isn't "coding" at all.

It's an interesting world - the AI is an extremely inexpensive employee and has enough skill to displace increasingly higher-skill tiers of actual software engineering and programming.

If I was running these hackathons, I would disallow AI or I would allow people to hire "code-as-a-service" people. Those seem functionally equivalent activities, just with AI being vastly easier to manage the logistics and you don't have to pay employment taxes or benefits to the AI.

It's no wonder there is so much tension about the many uses of AI - instead of hiring people to do work, it's another instance of paying to use a machine to do work at a price point lower than paying people.