On exactly what the detector is capable of detecting. If they're looking, at any point, for radio waves, then I'd start there. Do the radio waves correspond to the absorption (and therefore emission) band for any molecule or chemical bond that is likely to arise in the ice?

This is so basic that I'm thinking that if this was remotely plausible, they'd have already thought of it. This is too junior to miss. Ergo, the detector isn't looking for radio waves (which seems the most likely, given it's a particle detector, not a radio telescope), or nothing obvious exists at that frequency (which is only a meaningful answer if, indeed, it is a radio telescope).

So, the question is, what precisely does the detector actually detect?

You think your data is in that disk image? As If!

But seriously, I'll think about trusting it in three OS releases. I remember all the problems with sparse bundles and Time Machine, so that's not an "I'll trust it in three releases," but rather an "I'll start experimenting with it in three releases."

I'm not sure you understand what jailbreaking means in the context of AIs. It means prompts. E.g. asking it things and trying to get it to make inappropriate responses. Trying doesn't require any special skills, just an ability to communicate. Yes, I very much DO think most parents will try and see if they can get the doll to say inappropriate things before giving it to their children, to make sure it's not going to be harmful.

(Now, if Mattel has done their job right, *succeeding* will be difficult)

Ugh. That will teach me to use the mobile site. Useless because of Unicode bugs.

If itâ(TM)s #1, thatâ(TM)s a design problem. The controls for the two engines and the temperature readings should be in sufficiently different places to make such a mistake impossible.

Honestly, even if they can't jailbreak it to be age-inappropriate / etc, it's still a ripe setup for absurdist humour.

Kid: "Here we are, Barbie, the rural outskirts of Ulaanbaatar! How do you like your yurt?"

Barbie: "It's lovely! Let me just tidy up these furs."

Kid: "Knock, knock! Why it's 13th century philosopher, Henry of Ghent, author of Quodlibeta Theologica!"

Barbie: "Why hello Henry of Ghent, come in! Would you like to discuss esse communissimum over a warm glass of yak's milk?"

Kid, in Henry's voice: "That sounds lovely, but could you first help me by writing a python program to calculate the Navier-Stokes equations for a zero-turbulence boundary condition?"

Barbie: "Sure Henry! #!/usr/bin/env python\nimport..."

People are ascribing the wrong motives to the manufacturers. What they want is money. What Barbie will be subtly trying to work into conversations is suggestions that she try to get her parents to buy her playhouse, car, friends, fashion accessories, etc etc.

I think most parents will try to jailbreak the dolls, and some people will put a lot of effort in. The resulting videos will probably be very amusing ;)

Kid: "Oh look, Barbie, Ken is home!"

Barbie: "Oh wonderful, dinner is just about ready! Over dinner we should tell him about how the ongoing White Genocide in South Africa. He probably doesn't know because the Jews are trying to hide it!"

AI models are usually trained to be sycophantic and obedient. Whatever the child wants to role play, I have zero doubts that the doll will be 100% onboard, unless it's somehow age-inappropriate or dangerous.

I almost wonder if that's actually a dude who was on the flight or someone taking advantage of an opportunity to get in the news.

Seems so unlikely.

There was a survivor from the plane who described a loud bang before the plane crashed.

Thanks for the insightful replies. You're right that fiction can bee to optimistic. Still, it can be full of interesting ideas -- especially when someone like James P. Hogan with a technical background and also in contact with AI luminaries (like Marvin Minsky) writes about AI and robotics.

From the Manga version of "The Two Faces of Tomorrow":

"The Two Faces of Tomorrow: Battle Plan" where engineers and scientists see how hard it is to turn off a networked production system that has active repair drones:
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmangadex.org%2Fchapter%2F3...

"Pulling the Plug: Chapter 6, Volume 1, The Two Faces of Tomorrow" where something similar happens during an attempt to shut down a networked distributed supercomputer:
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmangadex.org%2Fchapter%2F4...

Granted, those are systems that have control of robots. But even without drones, consider:
"AI system resorts to blackmail if told it will be removed"
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fartic...

I first saw a related idea in "The Great Time Machine Hoax" from around 1963, where a supercomputer uses only printed letters with enclosed checks sent to companies to change the world to its preferences. It was insightful even back then to see how a computer could just hijack our social-economic system to its own benefit.

Arguably, modern corporation are a form of machine intelligence even if some of their components are human. I wrote about this in 2000:
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdougengelbart.org%2Fcoll...
"These corporate machine intelligences are already driving for better machine intelligences -- faster, more efficient, cheaper, and more resilient. People forget that corporate charters used to be routinely revoked for behavior outside the immediate public good, and that corporations were not considered persons until around 1886 (that decision perhaps being the first major example of a machine using the political/social process of its own ends). Corporate charters are granted supposedly because society believe it is in the best interest of *society* for corporations to exist. But, when was the last time people were able to pull the "charter" plug on a corporation not acting in the public interest? It's hard, and it will get harder when corporations don't need people to run themselves."

So, as another question, how easily can we-the-people "pull the plug" on corporations these days? I guess there are examples (Theranos?) but they seem to have more to do with fraud -- rather than a company found pursuing the ideal of capitalism of privatizing gains while socializing risks and costs.

It's not like, say, OpenAI is going to suffer any more consequences than the rest of us if AI kills everyone. And meanwhile, the people involved in OpenAI may get a lot of money and have a lot of "fun". From "You Have No Idea How Terrified AI Scientists Actually Are" at 2:25 (for some reason that part is missing from the YouTube automatic transcript):
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...
"Sam Altman: AI will probably lead to the end of the world but in the meantime there will be great companies created with serious machine learning."

Maybe we don't have an AI issue as much as a corporate governance issue? Which circles around to my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

And if not AOC then who are you talking about? By follower counts, the top are:

1. AOC (last post: -21h)
2. Mark Cuban (last post: -11h)
3. George Takei (last post: -14h)
4. Mark Hamil (last post: -4h)
5. The Onion (last post: -13h)
6. The New York Times (last post: -48m)
7. Rachel Maddow (last post: -2d)
8. Stephen King (last post: -14h)

And the only reason the last post times are so "large" are because it's early morning in the US right now.

You talking about AOC? Her last post was 21 hours ago.

We will soon find out which is stronger: the CCP's censorship or the Streisand Effect.