Maybe they are an aircraft carrier that is deployed in places that no reasonable human can expect a service technician to visit, and this level of imbecility should generally be avoided.
You're being bad for the community. But thanks for including a well - spoken, albeit opinionated reply, in your otherwise rude, projecting, and downright censorious comment.
This rationale is fundamentally incorrect. God's gift of Free Will (unto Man) is specifically the power (with faith) to manifest that which is nondeterministic. Where you got this notion of determinism, and thus nonjudgment, is a fancy set of mental gymnastics which is inconsistent with any known Christian teachings.
There was insufficient context.
Imagine I tell you "turn on that light, where I'm pointing". You'd do no better. No one here is under the conviction magical prescience is involved. This tooling provides the mechanism for an initial API call to be tied to the event described, in natural language, as "look where I'm pointing".
The first response (to ask for clarification) is precisely what a human agent would do to get context to clarify the coarse-grained request. The second guess, assuming you disabled the (explicit) allowance for clarifying questions, is also a magnificent recognition of implicit, common-sense context. Seems it's even more effective than you at following the true context for this tools appropriate placement.
Indeed, the context is "people using natural language to make requests". No soul on earth would consider/use your phrasing.
I (a human) have clue what your request is for - "lowest observed request volume"...??? Try "raisr the lights where we usually aren't asking you for much" and you might get tge same result. As far as I can tell, brightness increase in the garage (where, I'd guess, you've made the least requests), the AI apparenyly understood better than you or I what you meant.
Your false dichotomy is disingenuous, a distraction/derailment to the discourse, and does not engage in addressing the issue of a person wanting to pay the developer yet having no privacy-respecting way to do so.
Please revisit site guidelines on "snark".
There is no more information, as described in TFA, for reasons of this information having not been discovered yet by the researchers studying the new tech.
The argument for inevitability is inevitably a lie.
His opinion is engulfed in the notion that there exists no individual whose will is truly free as if given by God alone.
Or, as another apt metaphor, its like taking hydration tablets instead of water.
Not that they don't help, but that you're using them wrong.
In your example, it sounds like arrogance, hubris, and dogmatic conviction could be problematic if a person cannot recognize room for growth without first identifying a character flaw to grow out of.
There's a lot of imagined, manufactured offense here which should perhaps remain packed up.
You know a strawman fallacy makes your paraphrasing both inaccurate and rude, no?
But can you uninstall the root certificates of an adversarial government (i.e., your own)? Is it now necessary that the chain of trust includes entities you don't trust?
One of those countries is the US.
Fax is unencrypted analog. If practice, tgis is ver certainly not secure.
It's only "more secure" in the sense that unauthorized access to it counts as wiretapping, whereas the feds carved a loophole allowing them to read private emails without going afoul our anti-wiretapping laws.
That you don't see the absurdity means our educational system is also doing what feds built it to do.
Fundamentally, IoT security will increase in proportion to repairability and our. ability to modify/reflash IoT devices.
No other change will have as great of an effect.
If we (the people) cannot audit a thing, its obscurity will harbor vast troves of insecurities.
Not all the value going over those lines is created by the cable company.
In fact, very little of it is, and it can only exist on the vast majority of its path with taxpayer support.
Commercial surveillance, by definition, includes the context of a surveillance company's primary customer.
When dealing with the sale of endangered animal furs, you don't just go after the trappers. It's no good to ignore the market effects of an eager customer.
Consider asking a cashier for a new membership card and take the membership form home but never fill it out. Why give a fake name when you can give no name at all? The loyalty card still works, and a usage pattern is tracked, even if not necessarilly tied to an identity.