darquomiahw

I remember a similar horror movie when scientists with good intentions were performing gain of function research on self-replicating nanomachines and some escaped, killing millions and causing massive economic damage. Of course, nobody held them liable and everyone forgot after a few years.

Or you can read the summarized version every one of these articles: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AIIsACrapshoot

Why would anyone take a Waymo when you can ride the Trimet MAX for $2.50?

What's TSMC's headcount down in AZ? I ask because Intel has laid off or retired around 40k employees in the past two years and they still need to cut a little more to please the new boss.

>What would you restrict, if you wanted to prevent any other actor from building drones? Batteries? Rotors? 3D printers? $17 Raspberry Pis?

Explosives and fuzing mechanisms, which are already regulated in many countries.

AI-generated "CSAM" is the perfect form of kompromat. Any computer with a GPU can generate images that an American judge can find unpalatable. Once tarred by the sex offender brush and cooled by 20+ years in prison for possession, any individual will be effectively destroyed. Of course, no real children are being abused, which makes it all the more ludicrous.

I'd imagine a parabolic dish that points at the satellite, driven by something powerful like a klystron. With a highly directional antenna and high power one should be able to saturate the satellite receiver.

This type of process has already been developed industrially: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland%E2%80%93Eyde_process

The trouble is that it is inefficient and will ultimately release some NOx compounds into the atmosphere since the conversion rate is not 100% to HNO3. I'm surprised there is not a single mention of this process in their paper.