Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Not encryption - more of a combination lock (Score 1) 28

That's a cool toy - a biological combination lock where you have to add drug in a particular sequence so that parts of DNA get arranged in the right order. It will never work to protect anything, because it assumes the attacker has not knowledge of the DNA sequence of the target and the state of its transcription. That's a bold assumption considering how cheap and fast DNA and RNA sequencing is these days. Within week at most the attacker can have full understanding of the design and state of the system. From that point on you can unlock it without guessing.

Comment Click bait title on a slashdot post (Score 1) 79

Nothing in the OP relates to whether AI has human intelligence or not. The first case is who created the artwork - a human or a machine. The court decided it was the machine, although it could be argued that the art was human creation and the AI was just a fancy brush in the hands of a skilled artist. The second case was if communications on legal mater with AI are privileged. The decision was that AI is not a lawyer (duh!) so the communications are not covered by attorney-client privilege.

There is nothing in these decisions about if AI has human intelligence. I will be shocked if a judge would rule on such matter, simpli because we have no idea what human intelligence is.

Comment Re:New Neighbors (Score 5, Insightful) 100

Said nobody with evidence.

The evidence contradicts your racist hypothesis - the higher fractions of Muslims correlates with fewer closed pubs. Muslims in UK:

  1. England: 3,801,186 (6.7% of the population).
  2. London: Has the highest concentration, with 14.3% of Londoners identifying as Muslim.
  3. North-West: 6.6% of the population.
  4. Yorkshire and the Humber: 4.8% of the population.
  5. West Midlands: 4.2% of the population.
  6. Scotland & Wales: Both have a 2.2% Muslim population.
  7. Northern Ireland: 0.6%.

Kindly go back to your echo chamber for emotional support.

Comment Re:Erm (Score 1) 72

It is not as simple as you try to present it. First of all he ain't driving it. He is a passenger. Second, he wasn't taking pictures of the rocket:

Artemyev was removed from training at SpaceX’s Hawthorne California, facility last week after allegedly photographing SpaceX engines and other internal materials on his phone and taking them off-site.

This is what they call "espionage". I guess what happened is something like this scene (about 2 minutes in) out of Dr. Strangelove.

Comment Was this list generated by AI? (Score 1) 166

FAA may have an issue with "3. Passenger Attendants". Teaching positions are also quite safe, as AI seems incapable for the time being to separate fact from fiction (to put it mildly). Jobs that carry any responsibility, i.e someone has to sign off on it, are also safe because if there is anything tech bros would never do is take responsibility for their products. BS jobs on the other hand can easily be handled by AI - political and sports commentators, salesmen, models, "analysits" of various kinds ....

Comment But was it secret?? (Score 1) 81

I may be too old to understand all the new fancy meanings of the word "Secret". In my backwards and tired mind if something was posted on the internet it does not qualify as a secret. Being unaware of information that has been out and about for years does not mean that said information was secret. It only means that the people calling it a "secret" were ignorant.

Comment Re:Plausibly fine (Score 2) 43

Testing on mice has produced tens of thousands of results that don't fully translate to humans, things like organoids (cloned partial human organs) might be able to produce more accurate results anyway. Weird that the only section of the US government still seemingly half functional is run by the brain worm anti vax guy, shit maybe the US really should've have made him president.

Said like someone who truly has no clue about what they are talking.

  • 1. Organoids, which are definitely not "cloned partial human organs" may be useful for evaluating some of the effects of the drugs, but have little to offer in terms of evaluating safety and efficacy. For this you need to understand how a drug is absorbed throughout the organisms, how it is metabolized throughout the organisms, how it is excreted from the organism, and how toxic it is to different organs. A little thing called AdMeTox. There is no way to do that on organoids.
  • 2. we know that animal results do not fully translate to humans. After years of animal testing we also now why this is the case and how to correctly interpret the results from animal testing.
  • 3. Not sure what makes you think the results from organoids and AI models will be more accurate, comprehensive or in any way better.
  • /ul?

Slashdot Top Deals

3500 Calories = 1 Food Pound

Working...