Norway's minister of digital affairs, said he was worried that new, powerful technology is being introduced where people risk being... audio-recorded without knowing it."
So, welcome to (checks notes) 1967, I guess?
I'm Pro-nuclear power, but I do have to agree that "containment leak" is definitely a very understated way of saying "you can see the pretty blue light from kilometers away."
It wasn't very good at counting the costs to anyone, and was pretty much ignorant of any costs to anyone else.
I don't believe today's models are AGI, but "not understanding cost" is a dangerous assumption to make. If you read the METR analysis of the Hugging Face attack, the agents used were very much aware of their own compute budgets and worked to maximize what the swarm had available to achieve the task.
Yeah, Schumer of all people whining about the surveillance state is absurd. Voted for the PATRIOT Act in 2001. Railed against Snowden a decade later. But, sure, Chuck, we totally believe you're on the side of the American People here, rather than simply being smart enough to realize that supporting Flock is a fast track to being voted out of office in the current climate (and a bipartisan one at that).
Qualified Immunity is a red herring. Don't get me wrong, it's a whole cloth creation of the Supreme Court that flies in the face of section 1983 and Congress should have fixed this problem decades ago, but QI is, first of all, limited to civil rather than criminal liability and, secondly, every police force in the country indemnifies its officers in the event of civil litigation that arises out of their actions.
If you want a real fix here, it's holding police accountable. Not throwing up hands and crying that "the big bad police union said that if we arrest officers for murder they'll go on strike, so what can we do?" Not only should their jobs not be protected when they commit obvious wrongdoing, they should be held to a higher standard in terms of criminal liability than Joe Citizen is in general. (Conversely, bona fide good faith error should be treated as just that).
Because they actively encourage police to believe that their matches are 100% accurate.
Tell me you didn't read the fucking article without telling me you didn't read the fucking article.
No, Flock did not indicate a 100% match, the alleged 'detective' queried for "all dodge durangos" in a given area and chose one that was a different color than the vehicle reported in the accident... which had no damage on it. This is, 100%, on the cop and not Flock.
today Microsoft is one of the world's largest users of Linux. It has no current motivation to harm Linux and every reason to defend it.
False. As a hosting provider Microsoft doesn't care what OS people are using, they just have to host it. But as an OS provider, Linux is still competition, so they still have a reason to attack it.
Yeah, you're not understanding what I'm saying: Azure doesn't just host Linux VMs, significant parts of the infrastructure are built on Linux. Microsoft has just as much (if not more) to lose from a resurgent SCO lawsuit than anyone, they aren't going to be the ones rocking this boat.
Who bothers with computers when you just created the World in 6 days?
One could argue that no one is doing it in six days without a shit ton of automation support. Some cherubim in ops saved eons when he wrote createstar.pl and it's still running in production today (though it looks like creategalaxy.pl stopped executing some time ago and hasn't been restarted and/or patched yet).
This was a reasonable screed two decades ago (and probably at least somewhat factual) but today Microsoft is one of the world's largest users of Linux. It has no current motivation to harm Linux and every reason to defend it.
They don't need to be.
The thousand-men armies scanning books get the books by buying them by the pallet load. It's stuff that nobody really wants, like old technical books that are out of date, self-published books, etc.
If the book was actually valuable you wouldn't expect the seller to sell it for dirt cheap.
This is why when people say the market decides they are wrong. If you can't sway a companies positions or politics by refusing to shop there then there is no way the market decides anything.
The problem with the above is that you are mistaking "yourself" for "the market."
"Everyone isn't doing what I want them to, obviously 'the market' is broken."
This kills me. Instead of a "simple" (I realize that e.g. a google search is not all that simple) database query, we have an LLM that does the query for you, then analyzes it, and redisplays the output (making it thousands of times more computationally expensive) but now you are suggesting that the chatbot control a VM or similar and perform the steps as if it were a human, adding millions of times more overhead. It's mind boggling.
Isn't cordyceps the fungal family that zombifies ants and other insects? Why anyone would want to promote something that maintains physical contact between living cordyceps and humans is beyond my comprehension.
Conspiracy theory: the "anyone" doing the promoting is already affected by the product they're hawking and it's trying to spread.
I assure you that the existence of these things does not mean you want to have to deal with actually exercising your rights under them, and that you're stupid if you don't go over the exact vehicle you're buying before signing anything. And that going-over includes "driving" the thing.
You have to be talking about Europe or something, because most people buying new cars in the US are buying off the lot. Dealers order vehicles with option packages most likely to appeal to a broad set of customers or designed to maximize their sales. Some people do order the exact vehicle they want, of course, but they're the minority.
"I go on working for the same reason a hen goes on laying eggs." - H. L. Mencken
