mLuby

Governments have experience limiting the spread of digital content. For now at least, AI proliferation is not immune to those same tactics.

It's not so black or white.

The International Criminal Court is one real-world example. The United States (to its shame, IMO) is not part of the ICC, yet most countries are and the institution is valuable despite not having 100% buy-in around the globe.

Also the Prisoner's Dilemma over multiple rounds teaches different lessons than when it's a one-off situation.

It's a super-specific niche that I'm very interested in but sadly has very little activity, so I'm happy to spread the word. ISRU "in-situ resource utilization" gets a bit more press more and then.

Isaac Arthur also has some good episodes (video/podcasts) on the subject of bootstrapping off-Earth industries like on the Moon or asteroids or Mars.

The deep ocean is the last unmapped frontier on Earth.

> There is no "we" that can pump the brakes.… The odds of getting a hundred thousand people to agree on anything, let alone with a profit motive involved, are zero.

Laws and regulation can do exactly that. We could even use AI to write the legislation to outlaw itself.

NASA did a study in the 1980's. For something more recent, I suggest checking out Dr. Casey Handmer.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19830007081/downloads/19...

A gun can itself be used to block a bullet, or to shoot down an incoming bullet, but they're both near-impossible to pull off. It's much easier to use the gun to shoot the attacker before they shoot you, or even better by its mere presence deter the attack in the first place.

This makes economic sense: it's expensive to armor every vulnerability and cheap to exploit just one.

I don't see a reason that AI would be different from guns or missiles in this regard: offense (or the MAD threat of it) is the best defense.

> And one possibility might be that AIs could “improve themselves” to produce a single “apex intelligence” that would in a sense dominate everything else. But here we can see computational irreducibility as coming to the rescue. Because it implies that there can never be a “best at everything” computational system. It’s a core result of the emerging field of metabiology: that whatever “achievement” you specify, there’ll always be a computational system somewhere out there in the computational universe that will exceed it.

That tigers are stronger than wolves doesn't prevent wolves from killing you.

Wolfram makes that class of error repeatedly. Another example: what prevents a system of ethics from being both Godel-incomplete/inconsistent and at the same time encompassing everything in the realm of human experience?

> For the first time in history, it’s become realistic to truly automate intellectual tasks. The leverage this provides is completely unprecedented.

The essay also mentions how humans are still the best at manual labor, and how government can work with humans directing the AI as it runs things every more efficiently. It doesn't touch on which humans wield that leverage, naively assuming it'll be all of us in a cozy democracy.

The author is too used to thinking from first principles and hasn't studied enough human history to understand how leverage gets abused.

What happened to hyphens?

  deicer
  de-icer

So like the /^regex(.*)syntax$/g that we have in vanilla JS?

(I agree with your overall point BTW.)

What does "intrinsic regex" mean?

What if the video is encrypted such that it can only be watched by certain faces?

The risk is that some judge doesn't appreciate your ironclad solution and so orders you to watch all the footage so they can record it over your shoulder.

One thing I love about this site is how people from all walks of life contribute.

Congratulations on reaching your hundredth birthday.

May I suggest more empathy for your fellow humans?

We aren't good at weighing long-term consequences, especially when we're young (as in the model's case) or in financial need (IDK if that was a factor here; it wouldn't surprise me).

Contracts between parties of such unequal bargaining power can't be ethically valid IMO, whatever legally validity they may claim.

Likewise, 20y+ contracts involving individuals aren't wise. (Fine for organizations like businesses and governments though.)

  > “Step out of the vehicle please.”
  > “Yes sir.”
  > I made sure he could see my body cam, made it prominent in the field of view for his body cam, so there’d be an obvious question later, if no footage was available from my point of view.

Weird how sometimes both body cams malfunction at the same time. Technology is hard, let's go shopping.

I wonder how it's perceived in Muslim cultures where the crescent moon shape is much more common and positive.

Reliably getting the message to the correct recipient?

I just have a bone to pick with all this software using phone numbers as ID or notifications. Send an email where we can filter it or if you must, do an app with notifications I can tune to my liking.

Isn't SMS considered insecure?

Which suggests the wrapper is the blocker. (I have no horse in the emacs vim holy war; this argument could apply to macOS just as easily.)

Notion has a nice split-screen preview + code approach.

> Lending [a country's monopoly on force] out is good international relations.

No, extradition is good international relations, but there the country retains its territorial monopoly on force.

> Not that it's never acceptable to violate [sovereignty].

What would be different about a scenario where Russia snuck commandos into the US to "law enforcement action" some Ukrainians? Nothing, because it's not acceptable, it's simply "might makes right."

(That said, bin Laden was horrible and Ukraine is awesome.)

> arbitration almost always increases options for consumers

A: could agree to arbitration or decide to go to trial. B: signed away right to trial so can only do arbitration.

I fail to see how B provides more options for consumers than A.

Why do you even need the tracker dart if you have a military drone overhead? Unless they pull some Baby Driver shenanigans in a tunnel, it should be easy to track a car. Might not work well in a few major cities (where they likely have camera nets anyway).

> This eliminates the need for possible high-speed chases, worries about police jurisdiction issues, and any concerns about danger on the roads.

I thought high-speed chases were often about getting a dangerous driver off the road. And by definition since it's high speed it's probably dangerous. GPS darts wouldn't do anything about that, you'd need some sci-fi EMP/hacker darts.

> "The reality is that everyone runs from the police nowadays," said Oak Brook police Chief Brian Strockis.

Well yeah—trust cuts both ways.

> "[Police can] get up next to the vehicle in an undercover car, roll down the window and tag that vehicle without the bad guy even knowing."

These GPS darts must transmit to be useful, so that signal should be detectable. Just another box for criminals to have next to a police scanner and radar trap detector.

It's totally reasonable: users would be happier, YouTube can charge more for it (YT Premium+?), and YT analytics can detect when a sponsor segment (which many videos already label, and which are known to be about 60s long) is skipped and pass those metrics on to the content creator so the sponsor isn't being cheated.

Everybody wins. (Yes this doesn't work for heavily integrated sponsorships but it'd still get most of them.)

IIRC that's how the Flow type annotations worked, but of course it lost out to TypeScript.

Imagine if they can't sell ads. How are they making money? I don't think subscriptions, pay per use, or referral fees would work.

The core argument is that the state law is nullified because it goes against the spirit (though not the letter) of the federal law.

Feels like that introduces more unintended consequences than if they'd just left it up to Congress to patch the loophole the state found.

  ¿Usable  Sing on, you
  against  youngins, o'
  owners?  O.G. yunions

It's fractal in a way: federal law enjoys unequal power over state law, so why would they see an issue with that same imbalance at smaller scales?

And Iceland's rocky beauty. And deserts.

There is a thin "atmospheric" layer of molecules floating around the lunar surface. Indistinguishable from vacuum for most purposes but it might affect that many 9's of purity.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LADEE/news/lunar-atmosphe...