If Musk ever does succeed in creating a “maximum truth-seeking AI”, he'll junk it immediately, as just another failure -- and classify the approach that produced it as clearly an unproductive path.
You just made me very, very sad :-(
That's what got me started. It took (too many) years, but in hindsight the conclusion was inevitable.
In context, that might plausibly not be a typo.
Somehow, I can't see either JK Rowling or her publisher(s) doing the right thing here... I certainly can't see Rowling following the example of Nora Roberts on this (even though in Rowling's case, it wouldn't even cost her a dime): https://lithub.com/nora-roberts-has-pitched-in-25000-to-save-another-library-at-risk/
Small town libraries can't afford to carry the court costs, even if they win in the end. (Isn't this what anti-SLAPP law is for?)
How do you get a big media company to shoot itself in the foot?That's easy. You don't even need a magic wand to invoke "Copyrightus maximus".
Why would victims of crime under-report crimes any more than they did twenty-five or fifty or seventy-five years ago? Under-reporting is a facile excuse for "crime-wave panic" trotted out by people who don't actually care about the facts of the matter and are even less interested in actually thinking about it.
"Very determinedly" stupid.
You're never going to persuade people to buy/subscribe to your product, by not letting them see it. Ironically, newspapers, magazines and broadcaster media used to boast about (even exaggerate) how many non-paying readers/viewers were likely to see their content -- and the ads served alongside. It was a selling point. Often the main selling point, for the same reasons that Super Bowl ads are so expensive. News outlets and advertisers both want __ and need -- to draw audience in, not block people out.
Merely following the noble example of the world's best known exemplar of how sheriffs are expected to carry out their duties, the most excellent and meritorious upholder of the public order, the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Let’s suppose the government actually gets pornography banned. How much are they going to spend on enforcing that ban? How many courts are going to get clogged up with porn cases? How many police officers have to be diverted from other matters to carry out porn busts?Answers: Far too much, and far too many.
Nah... Musk absolutely believes in his own right to speak absolutely freely -- whenever, wherever, and however he wishes.
So in other words, only the SCOTUS judges that actually care to follow the law, the constitution, and the principles of good jurisprudence, will actually recuse themselves? That's... not encouraging.
They certainly made a show of sending him a letter that is useless, and really is just an opinion piece about the possibile perception of a video.Actually, it would be the perfect thing to frame and hang on his brag wall. And his website, if he has one. Heck, he should include it on his resume.
Since when does anyone refer to a company as he?Since they can't be bothered to express themselves clearly in the first place.
No. It was not obvious, required making assumptions (a.k.a. 'guesses'), and being unsure whether I interpreted them correctly. After your explication, it turned out that -- in addition to having been uncertain I understood either statement correctly -- I actually interpreted one quite incorrectly. The problem here was in the confusing speech, not the confused listeners.
Within the year, all the students subjected to AI supervision will know how to do this.
You forgot the lawyers. They will also win big from all the litigation.All of the lawyers? Or just the ones that managed to keep the use of AI strictly restrained in their own practice?
It's not cowardice, it's "plausible" deniability.
These billionaires don't see the likelihood of a combination of oligarchy combined with christo-fascism as being a deal-breaker problem -- in fact, many of them actively favor both halves of that description. But a democratically elected government that might reign them in just a little bit? They see that as an actual, significant threat... for them, the only question is how openly they're prepared to identify themselves as preferring the anti-democratic option. It's not cowardice, it's keeping their position quiet, to avoid being held publicly accountable for what they're trying to do.