... there were some storage facility for megalomaniacal computers that are self-aware.

Oh, you are 100% right There needs to be more mental health for police. The moment a person decides he or she wants to apply for a police job they need to be placed into a mental institution, they are a danger to people around them.

I just wanted to let you know that you have successfully driven me off of /., after some 25 years.

Not just you, obviously, the site has been in steep decline for a long time, but you were such a huge asshole that you managed to be the last straw. So, congrats for that. I won't be back.

The idea of a distributed ledger that can be done worldwide without any government involvement has value by itself.

The idea that you can buy, hold, and sell bitcoin somewhat anonymously* has value by itself.

* obviously trades involving the same wallet are tied together, and there are off-chain methods of tying a wallet to a real person, but with good "opsec" using bitcoin can be about as anonymous as using paper/coin currency or lumps of shiny metal or uncut jewels

But expensive.

I am fully expecting him to propose renaming America into Trump Land at some point, so he did miss a trick. It should be T & A.

Well, there have to be correct incentives for someone to be in software, I got into it because I liked the idea of being able to control a machine, to be able to tell a computer what to do and it would do it.

Would I have the same interest in it 40 years ago if controlling the computer meant writing in human language that is imprecise and nuanced and receiving back code that I couldn't start to comprehend? Maybe, maybe not, I am not sure actually. If there was still a way for me to do this without the AI I probably would have gone that route but how many people today would do it? I mean people are telling Agents to write their letters for them, not code, just letters. People are telling agents to do all sorts of things, all of which probably saves some time, make some errors, creates some problems while solving others, it is just that none of it is actually understood by the user.

How many AI users understand how any of it works? But that was the point, to understand how the thing works to be able to control it.

It is similar to car mechanics, people who like to tinker with cars, how interesting is it to tinker with a car where you are not allowed to understand half of it and you cannot fix most of it, if something breaks you have to order an entire replacement part because it has a built in computer interface.

The true tale of government agents extracting their share from the profitable movie Coyote vs. Acme.

More like 99.99%. Maybe need some more nines in there. Large C codebases without regular critical CVEs are basically nonexistent.

What bankruptcy-prevention actions are they asking for?

Is that on top of the 30% federal tax credit?

15-25 kWh drawn by the utility is quite a bit! I hope they're paying him well for that.

They're bringing outside scrutiny into their processes; that's going to slow them down, too.

Not "at the same time". You're conflating what AI can do now with what it will likely be able to do in a year or five, or 20.

Amodei and others are worried about what AI that doesn't yet exist may do, not about what current-generation AI can do. AI is getting better, very quickly, and unless there's some blocking obstacle that no one has been able to identify will at some point become far, far smarter than humans, individually or collectively. So before that happens, we need to figure out how to make sure that superintelligent AI wants to help us, and wants to do it in the right way.

This is my dumb opinion, but academia is meant to be iterated upon by others referencing work. Just as "publish or die" is an academic addage, failing to adopt new tools is also death.