Well, we did put all available engineering capacity into improving ICE vehicles for around a century. I’m sure the next century will see considerable improvement in EVs, if humanity survives that long.

If I recall correctly, that’s consistent with the other scrolls from that library that have been deciphered by different methods, so at least some of the text is likely to be correct.

After a quick skim of the article, it isn’t as bad as I thought it would be, but the author 1. only worked with a single Intel CPU (no AMD devices at all) and 2. could do with a wider knowledge of niche distros.

A religion is just a cult that’s bamboozled a certain number of people in positions of power into going along with it.

Since the article clearly states that even Canada—where we drive the same vehicles and have some similar infrastructure issues—isn’t showing the same uptick, the most likely reasons are legal/regulatory or cultural rather than physical. In other words, there’s more going on here than just oversized SUVs with bad collision outcomes for pedestrians (although they certainly don’t help).

We may also be separated by a common llanguage—“lecturer” isn’t a word that’s much used in Canada. I’ve only encountered it as a Briticism.

x-¹

Where I come from, that’s read as “x to the [power of] minus one”. “x minus one” is, well, x - 1. Not the same thing at all.

(I admit, my chances of deciphering what you meant might not have been all that high even if you’d used the correct phrasing, but without it, the chance was zero.)

Thing is, it just takes one person with a spine to completely upend things if you try to do it that way. Too risky.

They obviously need to design cleaning robots and rat-catching robots and repair robots to support the delivery robots. I mean, we could have an entire robot ecology here, living unnoticed under the city streets.

Anyone else remember the export crypto nonsense with early web browsers? This is going to work about as well.

The difference between the 65+ bracket and the 50-64 bracket in the original data is larger than the gap between 50-64 and 30-49 on every chart I’ve examined so far (where they’re broken out by age), so the real break is at retirement. Which makes sense: retirees are less likely to be forced into proximity with LLMs whether they want to be or not. (Interestingly, the older demographics are also less likely to think they have enough control over interactions with “AI”.)

they should be forced to build their own infrastructure to support it (no idea what that looks like for delivery robots)

Tunnels, at least in heavily populated areas. They already make pipes that should be big enough. It might require a slight redesign of the bots so that they can “climb the wall” a short distance to pass each other, and maybe extend/retract some bits depending on whether they’re inside or out, but my heart would not exactly bleed over the money spent. And they’d be out of sight, out of mind most of the time for the rest of us.

I expect you’d have to start with one of those binocular magnifiers. And the smallest soldering iron tip in history.

It’s niche hardware: a smartphone in a flip-phone formfactor (with a headphone jack). Of course they’re not producing them for <$100. Ars Technica costed out other phones in a similar market category ( last paragraph here ) and by that standard it’s middle-priced, or a bit above.

I suspect they’re jumping on your use of the word “retarded”, since some see using it as an insult as a slur against people with intellectual disabilities. (They also can’t spell “casually” and substituted a word with quite a different meaning, which makes it even tougher to decode what they’re saying.)

Are we sure? Has anyone actually checked to make sure he isn’t a lizardman from inside the hollow Earth, all dressed up in a rubber human suit? I mean, sure, he isn’t an LLM, but there are so many other possibilities!

Confiscate both the gun and the dog, since the dog is obviously being maltreated to the point that trying to shoot its owner seemed like a good idea.

(Only the second half of that is sarcastic.)

the next step is to debate what is AI and what’s not.

Unnecessary, in my view. If you use a tool to produce something, and that something breaks a law, then you are liable, not the tool. Doesn’t matter whether it’s a hammer or an AI. If a human employed by Google had written the incorrect summary on Google’s behalf, then Google would still be liable (the difference is that the human writer might also be individually liable, depending on local law).

Search engines received various kinds of legal immunity in many jurisdictions because they were only presenting information written by third parties outside their control. These summaries are not third-party content, and if they are libelous, the responsibility falls squarely on Google.

…just wait until all your favorite search engines integrate it.

At which point they cease to be your favourites, I hope. There are so many alternatives in that space that only inertia keeps people using the Empire of Evil.

Pale Moon is not a soft fork.