hackyhacky

Musk's plan for the survival of the species, as far as I can tell, is to personally make as many (white) babies as possible. His talk of colonizing Mars is a pipe dream, a lure for gullible investors.

I am sure they do play those statements in the movie itself. The trailer exists to get your attention,not to provide all information.

If you're genuinely curious, and can't wait to watch the film, here's a starting point: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-lists/elon-musk...

Any system can be disrupted if you throw unlimited VC money at it.

In principle, that's fine, but "disruptive" businesses aren't building a positive long-term model. Rather, they are leveraging investors' money to recklessly demolish established systems and replace them with something worse.

The business plan of any "disruption" is to undercut the legacy competitors, drive them out of business, then jack up the prices. See also: Uber, streaming services.

Enjoy your cheap lawyer tokens while you can.

Yes, lawyers have ethical and legal responsibility for their work. Plus, I'd prefer that my money not go towards the consolidation and monopolization of all intellectual labor in the hands of Sam Altman.

My comment was not intended to express support of using AI instead of lawyers, but rather to express the pointlessness of "disrupting" human lawyers.

> I’m totally fine with that industry getting disrupted.

Because you'd rather pay your $1000 to OpenAI for 5 milliseconds of work, instead of to a human lawyer for 10 seconds of work?

No one doubts that the work is difficult. The criticism, as the trailer makes clear in context, is not that the company is not making adequate progress, but rather that the public statements made by Musk about the progress of the company are not honest.

> Why do people automatically associate intellectual capability with evil?.

No intellectual capability, but non-human, inherently amoral intellectual capability that has already been proven act in hard-to-predict, illegal, and unethical ways. I think that's a very rational thing to be afraid of.

From TFA:

> But wouldn't we want to see the black hole? One could send a ray through every pixel of a screen, and let them go around the black hole and hit its surroundings. And if the rays are sent back in time, it's as if one received the light emitted by the surrounding objects in the past!

This is very interesting, but way above my pay grade. Can someone explain how the resulting image reflects light traveling backwards in time?

> you can recognize that usage in those phrases, rather than revealing some kind of subtle point about how the is used in nearly-identical contexts, is determined arbitrarily.

I wasn't aware that I was making a "subtle" point. I was joint showing that the use of articles in English is complex and hard-to-predict for non-native speakers, in contradiction to the claim (paraphrased) that "Just use the for things that are definite, duh!" Your observation that article use varies between dialects of the same language strengthens my point, insofar as encountering inconsistent use makes learning the language even harder.

> is determined arbitrarily.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Languages vary systematically over time. Just because two different dialects, or two different languages, do things in different ways doesn't mean that those changes were arrived at arbitrarily.

> The hospital example is pretty much the same. Being "in the hospital" is analogous to being "in school",

No. To be "in hospital" or to go "to hospital" means that you are a patient. To be "in the hospital" describes only location.

> Your description is incomplete

Your analysis is fine, but does not contradict my comment and moreover is irrelevant to the present discussion, which pertains to the subtle use of articles in English.

We frequently use definite articles with plurals. It simply identifies a bounded or known set.

* I understand all languages. -- unbounded set, applies to every language, everywhere

* I understand all the languages. -- bounded set, applies to a known set of languages, i.e. specifically those languages which are supported by a particular program

To be fair, I think "all cases" in this situation is also acceptable.

I have no idea why I shouldn't write "all the cases". What are you trying to say?

> Whether Hungarian qualifies as Finno-Ugric is up for debate,

Is it up for debate? What is the argument against including Hungarian in Finno-Ugric? I mean, the "Ugric" part of Finno-Ugric is in reference to Hungarian.

> [I learned it] "at school" - I learned it at school, I'm not specifying which school

> [I learned it] "at the school" - I learned it at school, the one that was referenced

That's not the distinction that the OP is making. If you say "I am at school", it means you are a student, you attend school. If you say "I am at THE school", it means you are physically at the school building, without specifying whether you are a student. Both of those options are different from saying "at a school." See also "prison", "work", "bed". Similar distinction (in UK English, not so much American English) with "in hospital" vs "in the hospital."

As was pointed out, "I go to the dentist every year" doesn't necessarily mean a particular dentist; it just means some dentist, but we use the definite article anyway, because I guess we consider all dentists interchangeable? We don't use definite articles even when we are referring to a specific thing in specific phrases, such as "I went to Florida by [the] car."

Then there's highly idiomatic use of articles with proper nouns. We say "Buckingham Palace" [no article] but "The Washington Monument" [definite article]. We talk about "The Rockies" [definite article] but "Mount Fuji" [no article]. "Germany" but "The United States." Sometimes we use the definite article when referring to to racial or ethnic groups, and sometimes we don't, and that choice can have complicated social implications ("The Blacks", anyone?).

In short, if a native English speaker tells you that article use is straightforward, then they simply have not considered all the cases.

> since Slavic languages lack articles apart from Sorbian

As far as I know (and as confirmed by Wikipedia [1]), Sorbian does not have articles. Maybe you are thinking of Bulgarian, which does have articles (although the definite article attaches as a suffix to the noun, rather than being an independent word).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbian_languages

That's fine, but a blog doesn't seem technically more demanding or interesting than a to-do list

> Diplodocus, Long Thought Exclusively American, Turns Up in Spain

Another example of quality American production moving overseas. Globalization will be the end of us

Is it more fashionable to build an AI harness?

The police officer is not standing on the street corner, observing public events. They are searching a privately-held database of sensitive information whose use is governed by certain restrictions, which are being violated by the police officer. Whether or not those violations rise to the level of crime does not erase the fact that they unethical, and likely against both Flock's terms of service and the department's policy.

The details don't matter. If you use a machine to commit murder, then you have committed murder, not the machine. The user is responsible, and the article's phrasing is an attempt to obscure that fact.

Pardon, but I think that someone who carries a gun (and is allowed to use it) as part of their work uniform requires stronger, not weaker ethical guidelines than someone who pushes code.

I work in a field where privacy of customer information is protected by law and we all take this very seriously. So, no, I would not do this, and I think that police (who have vastly much more power over people's lives than I do) should not either.

> The Israeli Effective Altruist firm Irregular caused unsecured AI models to hack real targets.

Why are we saying it this way? They did not "cause AI to hack." This phrasing in analogous to saying "caused the bullet to fire into" instead of "shot."