Code generation is a very limited use case compared to how these things have been marketed.

Seems they're scrambling to find use cases for the technology, not responding to customer demand at all. Really disconnected from humanity, clearly.

> less than 30% of all purchased hardware is installed Wow, I hadn't heard that. Do you have a source? Personally, I never thought the data center investments would pay off.

There are a few other ways to make money on AI, such as Palantir (assuming they won't face financial liability, for example in the Iran girl's school bombing). So, basically, sell your soul to make any money with AI. There are other valid use cases for things that fall under the AI umbrella, but they don't seem to focus on profitability.

Since people in general will not pay for AI, and its use doesn't seem to financially benefit most organizations (at least at current prices and capabilities), the monetization options so far appear to be coding/hacking, ads, user data collection, and tracking? Likely selling collected data to governments, marketing, and other leaches? Will that be enough to recover the data center investments?

I'm not sure what you mean by bot, but I'm relatively confident that I'm human. That doesn't mean that my sentences aren't stupid, like this one with an intentional double negative.

But that could have been done by a single actor ;-)

Swarm theory suggests that when interests align, no outright conspiracy is required to incentivize consistent group behaviors towards a shared goal outcome.

Maybe these fearmongering ai researchers just have ai psychosis, or believed what an ai told them, possibly accessing such systems without safeguards. Not that the safeguards are truly effective...

Better if the USA has all the data? Are aware of the ratio of wars started by each country? My goodness.

I'm sort of a conspiracy theorist, but I can't buy into this fear of AI. Fear of people using AI for nefarious purposes is a different issue, but unlikely to end our species. Or about as likely as aliens visiting our planet during the existence of our species, which is rather unlikely.

I continue to fail to see how you reach certain conclusions, but I don’t see any value in pursuing this discussion further. Apparently based on our individual experiences that seem to have lead to or exacerbated some biases, it seems that we see things so differently that I can’t even tell whether you are or believe that you are arguing in good faith. To be clear, I am not on the opposite side of some debate with you; I am not in favor of riots, defunding police forces, or anarchy. I continue to assert that you have not provided sufficient evidence to support your original claim. I could give four concrete examples from my personal experience that directly conflict with your perspective but not a single example of an officer helping me. That does not mean that officers don’t help or intend to help, I just question the ratio of their motivation. I don’t believe that my experiences are unique and there are constant reports of various forms of abuse by police. Probing further, I believe you have made additional invalid points that I don’t care to refute, especially as neither of us is able to prove anything about almost any perspectives expressed here. We simply disagree to the point that we apparently find each other’s statements to be nonsensical.

Again, the training materials are irrelevant to the motivational outcome evidenced by officer behaviors. Repeating your statements and swearing does not support your argument. In fact, I believe that these tactics work against you in the general public eye. Swearing is evidence of a loss of control, often due to frustration, where frustration is often part of learning. Argumentum ad naseum leaves the impression that you don't have better supporting arguments. I read your comments the first time and there's no point repeating them, except maybe for your other readers, as you stated.

That being said, you have not effectively countered any of my arguments or evidence, nor your new claim that any officer action that doesn’t align with your perspective is an outlier. I am not referring only to my personal beliefs. I am referring to my experiences with officers as well as evidence available to the general public that contradicts your statement that “officers do generally want to help people", which is supported by common reports of police misbehavior, my personal experiences with officers, and research such as the Stanford Prison Experiment. You also used the weasel word "generally". That being said, you have achieved your goal of argumentum ad nauseam/infinitum, as I do not care to participate in this particular exchange any further, as you provide no new facts or evidence.

> And the police and military include the concept of illegal orders into their training as a result.

I’m curious if you think the military always follows only “legal” orders, or if any illegal orders have been followed by the military in recent years (for example, attacking boats around South America, or specific actions such as apparently targeting a girls’ schools and wedding in the current Iran conflict, as well as attacking non-military equipment such as oil facilities, and of course destroying clearly civilian resources as well). Even if there is evidence of drug trafficking on these boats, that does justify the USA murdering all on board, especially the double-tap event. The capture of Maduro is also questionable, as are the assassinations of leaders in Iran. Or are contractors (merceneries) and USA TLAs allowed to carry out what would be illegal orders to the military?

> I could do a proper debate, its just that slashdot is not a venue worth much time.

Note that your posts on this site and in this thread often do not evidence this supposed belief of yours.

But I completely agree with you; I mostly waste time here for the entertainment value (I do like to argue!), not because I expect to actually influence someone’s perspective, especially one such as yours or anyone agreeing with your comments. In reading, I am mostly here to learn, but it is frustrating to see falsehoods and illogical arguments. We should all simply stop responding to the rage baiting on both sides, as it only sharpens divides. For this reason, I try to discuss logic and critical thinking rather than using bad faith argumentation tactics, spreading falsehoods, insulting people (though sometimes I have something like Keyboard Tourette Syndrom).

> my comments are sometimes oriented to the more rational reader that is not actually speaking up.

I have the same objectives as well, but maybe confirmation bias applies in any case where anyone agrees with either of us. And I really doubt that either of us is convincing anyone that doesn’t already agree with us to change their perspective. Basically, we’re all just shouting into the social media void to egotistically hear the sound of our own voices, thinking that we may actually be reaching a wider audience. I don’t have anything to go on other than what I’ve read, seen, or experienced myself, which does not support your conclusion.

My point was that cadet training materials are not evidence in support of your assertions that officers generally want to help people. Instead of countering my argument, you simply repeat yourself and then make another unsubstantiated claim ("Its not a career you go into otherwise."). This appears to others as argumentum ad nauseam/infinitum)

Additionally, an individual's reasons to chose a career do not necessarily dictate motivations behind behaviors afterwards. Also, I would suggest that most people chose careers for multiple reasons, not a single reason. Police have a well-documented history of supporting each other over the public at large, which my personal experiences confirm. Consider also studies such as the Stanford Prison Experiment - people given undue power over others often gravitate towards its abuse.

Every time you I see you in discussion, your arguments don't appear to be logical and you don't accept when others point out facts and make logical arguments that counter your statements. If you actually believe the things that you write, it might be in your best interest to question some of them when others point out your bad faith arguments, flawed logic, and clear falsehoods. This could improve your debate skills. It would probably be even better to admit such errors to others, which would increase your potential credibility.

Police training programs are not actual evidence of anything that would support your argument that officers generally want to help people. Training programs and police policies dictate neither officer thoughts nor actions. For example, pilots are taught not to crash planes, and there are policies requiring go-arounds, but a pilot recently crashed a cargo plane in violation of both. Goals != outcomes.

> officers do generally want to help people

Citation needed. This has absolutely never been my experience more than ten interactions with different police officers. They're there for the money and the power and to protect each other first, whatever that takes.