"Given the real world long lines and mostly empty shelves that real world Marxism produces, you might want to fund a different topic for the marxist propaganda."

Especially when readers like you subscribe to capitalist propaganda. There is no argument that "real world Marxism produces" what you say, only that communist systems have failed (primarily because they are as corrupt as modern Republican politics is now).

But to solve these problems, we don't need "Marxism" and we certainly don't need your bogeyman, we only need responsible regulation of capitalism to ensure free markets. This a problem of lack of free markets.

"Sorry, real life marxism is a bit different than ivory tower marxism. "

Sorry, there is no "real life marxism", your example is failed soviet communism. Not even true communism. And the USSR failed by a combination of Afganistan war and Chernobyl. Not that facts matter to you.

"Today we see a loss of faith in marxism in youtube videos when someone from venezuela or north korea visit costco, an american grocery store."
No we don't.

"Hell, European socialists are overwhelmed with joy."
Why shouldn't they be? Their standards of living are higher than ours. Americans love socialism when they're cashing the checks. They only hate it when you're cashing yours. Americans are unique in their view that hurting your quality of life is just as good as helping theirs. Sound familiar, dmb?

This is not a fast food issue, it's an unconstrained capitalism issue. As competitors are forced out, buyers must be willing to pay more. Make sure you can exploit that real-time, monopolists get rich and everyone else can starve.

This is an inevitable consequence of Reagan and modern Republican power. Increasingly, McDonalds will be all people can afford, then not even that. And you aren't protected by preparing your own meals either, groceries get the same treatment...as does the rent on the apartment you increasingly can't afford. All the effort goes into enabling the rich to take money at increasing rates.

They won't be able to improve it because they don't know what "improve" means.

Current AI development is about scaling up, it is no longer about modeling and emulating the mind. AI companies do not care one bit about developing what laypeople would consider "improvements", they only care about getting rich by getting "there" first. Who cares how many die, that's your problem.

I also think it's naive to say that AI researchers "don't know" how modern AI, i.e. transformer models, work. They know, it's just impossible to predict results given the immense size of the models. What they don't know, because they don't care, is why models generate such catastrophic results at times. Once upon a time, AI research would consider this their highest priority, not anymore.

And you can't separate the models from the applications that use and direct the models. That's where the shit really starts to stink. Remember that when part of the prompt reads "...make sure to kill mostly brown ones". Hyperbolics aside, actions that would result in criminal and civil penalties if done by humans will be fair game for AI, a fact executive management and billionaires are eager to exploit.

"This means that we don’t understand how models do most of the things they do.”

Models don't "do things". They also don't "write words". Whoever said this is not part of "us, the model's developers".

Now that sociopath neural networks exist, what we need now is to have them enabled to do anything, unsupervised and unaccountable. We can sell it by saying it "can work towards your goals 24/7" when we really mean it can help you destroy the people you hate, until it destroys you instead.

If an always-on AI can do "productive" things on your behalf, doesn't that show a failure to identify work you need to do? It's questionable why such tools should even exist, but we all know how quickly these things will abuse their access to do unacceptable things. As intended by their creators.

"Make no mistake. We are giving birth to a new species."
No, we are not. AI is deterministic, it is merely software and has none of the characteristics of a "species".

"Imagine a Mensa member locked in a room full of toddlers."
I would rather not, but Mensa is mostly about narcissism. AI is not narcissistic, it is sociopathic.

"Post-AGI? I'll give human usefulness 90 days. Tops."
You won't last that long.

And after it kills people, it can be turned off...then right back on.

The hysterical thing is that the models don't matter, the agents do. Not talking about those though.

The irony is that while some in the industry advocate a moratorium on model development, the moratorium should be on agent deployment, what those same companies want to accelerate. The government should be supporting development of non-sociopathic models while banning deployment of software that does damage on behalf of bad AI decisions.

Those are the people you voted for.

As long as it's ICE doing the killing, what's the difference between 1000 and 100,000? DOGE is about efficiency after all.

This is the most important thing for people to understand. Built into this data, carefully designed to mislead, is a misrepresentation as to what's important. Injuries can be reduced just my eliminating driving entirely but that doesn't make Waymo money. But Waymo ruining YOUR driving is perfectly OK. And they do.

I think it's hysterical that people think insurance companies will force drivers off the road. They will certainly raise prices as much as they can, but they will NOT destroy one of their most profitable markets. Waymo doesn't need a policy from State Farm.

Does it though? Waymo can refuse a ride to the emergency room because of a shower, you would not. Sociopathy is not a virtue...unless you're Elon Musk.

It's never a question whether self-driving should ever even be considered on roads designed only for human drivers. I think it should NOT be. A mile high stack of band-aids piled on top of a software stack that no one understands and that contains a limitless number of bugs that no one will ever fix is not my idea of a foundation to risk my life on, far better would be a road system designed to support automated driving directly. But that doesn't make Elon money.

Waymo doesn't count an entire class of accidents, a class far more common to occur at slower speeds. Of course, it's then important to know what Waymo's mix of slow speed vs high speed driving is compared to the human data. This is lying with statistics.

"Simple, the amount of crashes caused by a human or a driverless car over an x amount of miles in a city environment. "
This is certainly false, both because of the bogus assumption what the miles are and the lack of information on what's a "crash" and what "caused by" means.

"People really are bad at driving generally..."
This is wildly false, it's an Elon Musk-level lie.

"almost all accidents are caused by a human driver not paying attention while driving, not due to some technical failure of the car itself"
So what? Built into this narrative are assumptions that self-driving is naturally far better AND that accident rates are high.

I tried to look into this and found no information at all. Waymo doesn't report its mix of driven miles and how it compares to the human data. And what exactly qualifies to get reported? And Waymo can cause an accident without being involved and that would not be reported here, yet a human would be. Autonomous driving has incidents of substantial interference with traffic, there would certainly be incidents of Waymo causing damage to traffic that would not be reported.

It's easy to reduce traffic injuries to zero, just stop driving. What's more important is reducing injuries while supporting transportation, this study doesn't care about that.

I see no evidence of that. I see claims. Are Waymo's miles directly comparable to human miles? Who knows.

And human drivers are NOT, "on average, really bad".

AI companies want model development frozen to lock out competitors and enable them to invest more aggressively in agents. Meanwhile, development in models is what is most important and government should halt all deployment of agents. It should be clear to everyone that AI companies have exactly the opposite of your best interests in mind.

An AI model isn't going to kill you, that's the agent's job.