Your statement ignores the meaning of AI or the decades of work that have gone into the field.

They’re not sentient. They’re not sapient. They’re not conscious, nor do they have feelings, volition, desire, or anything that can be described as an internal life. They can’t even think in they sense that anyone means by it.

None of those things are intelligence though.

An LLM posesses the ability to respond to external stimuli in a way that is meaningful. They also have the ability to learn, which is the act of a system transforming information or stimuli in a way that is applied to later stimuli.

My air conditioner learns and is intelligent. It measures the environment, takes actions based on that stimulus, and when I make adjustments it records when I like different settings and applies that to the temperatures it’s recorded in the past to adjust early. An LLM may be more sophisticated than my air conditioner but it’s in the same category.

The mistake is thinking that AI in the real world is what AI is on TV.

In the description of the law, how is that meaningfully different from promising tax policy changes?

It’s not telling people to vote, not vote, or to vote for anyone in particular, and is just a notification of something they’ll do if elected.
The implication is that you should vote for them, but you didn’t make the offer conditional.

Bribery is easier if you’re using other people’s money because rather than paying people to do what you want you can make a blanket promise to everyone and let them work through the implications.

Did you forget we were talking about 3d printers?

You compared the people making fun of the drm mandate to people making fun of car registration because you can build a kit car, implying that building a 3d printer was a nearly insurmountable hurdle.

Being able to trivially bypass the drm is exactly why it’s laughable.

Cars, bikes, or your dislike have nothing to do with the DRM mandate being toothless and stupid.

Okay? What does that have to do with the drm mandate being easy to get around?
Is your point that it’s okay to put unenforceable, easily bypassed restrictions on stuff if you think they’re bad?

I’m not sure honestly sure what your point is, because you went a bit too far with the analogy.

Itty bitty ones, sure. And they take weeks to produce a working vehicle, of substandard quality.

This was about regulating 3d printers, not guns. A diy printer, a new drm printer and an old not-drm printer produce the same quality output.

A diy 3d printer is just as durable as a purchased one.

If your goal is to have an unregistered car, or in this case a drm free printer, the law seems silly when you can get one for cheaper than the “proper” one and have it out together in an afternoon if you have highschool level mechanical aptitude.

Making a full on machine gun is literally one of the original cottage industries. They’re hard to design but the actual fabrication can be so dumbed down that you can make it out of non un-common household tools with minimal skill.

Some of the tricky bits are making the weapon fire slower, so it doesn’t jam or get so hot rounds fire before they’re actually in the chamber. Or just keeps firing because releasing the trigger wasn’t enough to keep the recoil from keeping it going.
If your goal is to give everyone in the UK too young, old or woman to draft a machine gun to make the Germans regret invading, then a horde of cockney 8 year olds with uncontrolled machine guns and poor trigger discipline is certainly a choice.

It more like mocking car registration because every neighborhood has a few people who can build you a car from scratch in a day, the city already has several thousand car factories that don’t require registration, there’s no mechanism to enforce registration, and the cost of building a new car is a few hundred dollars. The motivation for requiring registration is also to stop people from driving full speed into fast food restaurants is custom built murder buggys. Yeah, you don’t want people to do that but it’s not like it really happens all that often.

Building a 3d printer from a kit is different from building one from scratch. It’s basically screwing parts together and plugging colored wires into matching slots.

Fruit juice naturally has around 0.5% alcohol. It’s just a side effect of wet sugar.

There’s no legal federal limit, it’s all state law. Some states go by that 0.5%. others go by a definition that includes “things sold as beer” essentially.
"You are holding a container. It is labeled beer. Do not give it to anyone under 21.”

Other times stores just assume and card everyone because it’s waaay easier than nuance and you’re not legally required to sell non-alcoholic beverages to minors.

… That’s everything at home depot. I don’t know that they have a product that isn’t able to be weaponized, and not just in the most literal sense.

It’s common and they were already in place when prohibition ended.

So after a good chunk of time with all the breweries becoming unavailable, they were fast to start selling and it just became a common brand.

Having the three key elements to an alcohol consumed for social purposes rather than taste also helped: cheap, available and cheap.

We’ve got others around, but they’re generally not everywhere.

I don’t know that I’ve ever heard anyone say they like the taste though. I think the closest I’ve heard is someone saying they like how it’s cold.

The real reason is you don’t. Not in every state. Some defined it by a strict measurable standard. Others defined it to close off what’s depicted in this image. Others defined it to describe what was banned as oppressed to what you measure, so that if you’re selling beer you can’t sell it to kids. No checking labels, no “well, it’s my home brew so I don’t know”. Is it beer? You can’t sell it to kids.

The last one is almost funny because you can almost feel the confusion about why the concept of non-alcoholic beer even exists.

Technically the drinking age isn’t a national law at all. Setting the state law to alignment is a precondition for national highway funding. A state can set the age to whatever they want, but the federal government wouldn’t give money for road maintenance.

As such, different states define a prohibited beverage in different ways. Some set the limit based on a set alcohol limit. Others based on intent or similarity, essentially so that they can prevent advertising alcohol^free beverages to kids and getting them in the habit at an impressionable age.

Most common is the abv limit based on what’s typically found naturally in juices and such, with limited exceptions for religious ceremonies, parental supervision, or accidental ingestion and such. (Technically speaking, if you call 911 because your 3 year old stole a canned alcoholic beverage off the counter and drank a bunch before you noticed and you’re scared, they would be required to also give you and the child legal penalties without that clause).

People in charge of the company I work for are actively delusional.

We had a four hour mandatory meeting to go over our product strategy. The high level vision. For the engineers. No rest breaks. It was announced there would be a test on the materials. Not as a joke.
The top question in the Qa section afterwards was “what is our product strategy?”.
The meeting had roughly 10k attendees.

“AI agents are going to become so pervasive that we’ll need to put a computer on every desk in every office. I’m serious: have you tried to buy a Mac mini lately? They’re just not available”. “Datacenters in space”.

We think they were announcing a new product dashboard, but we’re not sure.

A huge amount of freakout about how AI will make everything different and better that most people on the ground don’t agree with, but we’re mandated to reorganize stuff according to the theory of how it should work in their vision. Teams that change and shift every few weeks. No fixed goals in the week to week timescales. Less planning, more demos, and development goals dictated by higher ups AI agents.

When it all shits the bed they won’t be the ones getting fired. They’ll be the ones collecting the same paycheck and talking about how “limited restructuring” is hard for everyone, but market forces dictate.

I’ve never been under the impression that my work makes the world a better place. I’ve always sold a product that goes to companies that do stuff that might help someone else help people.
It’s someone else having a goddamened coke bender on 50k people’s livelihoods with no consequences that has me down.

I won’t disagree with what you said, but I’ll disagree that it’s the same point I was making.

My point was that there isn’t a technical solution to traffic congestion. You need less fluid or a bigger pipe. What you correctly mention is why a bigger pipe won’t work for humans when it does for water.

And out of pure pedantry, I’d disagree purely because my analogy said “non-newtownian liquid” - those don’t expand. :P it’s more like a hyperactive toddler manically jamming silly putty into a PVC pipe.

Traffic congestion doesn’t happen because of lack of coordination. Coordination prevents collisions. Our success rate could be a lot better but the system does pretty well with coordination limited to blinking lights, a noise that says “fuck off”, the mutual knowledge that we all got the same training and the private knowledge that everyone else on the road is a suicidal idiot who slept through the training.

Congestion is a physical property of the road network. There’s a physical limit to the number of cars you can push through a road in a given time period. Drive the cars too fast and they fly off the road when it bends, or cars slam into each other when a deer tries to commit suicide.

Traffic is well modeled as an incompressible slightly non-newtownian fluid, like runny oobleck. If you apply more pressure/increase vehicle volume the fluid starts to bind up as it becomes harder for the cars to maneuver without collision, regardless of coordination.

You reduce traffic by taking cars off the road, or scheduling utilization. Self driving cars won’t help, and we can do both of those without them. Long term they’re likely to make collisions worse because humans don’t know what they’re going to do, so the primary mode we have of coordination, “the theory of mind” will break down. Right now they’re so uncommon that you assume any car is a human who reacts and prioritizes like you.

Tear down the freeways and replace them with trains.

What, to you, constitutes “shitty”? I’m seeing people giving feedback on their question. The person you specifically responded to and called shitty and self centered just told OP their motivations were childish and their father was pretty reasonable in his request, given the circumstances.

So no, not as shitty as you want just because they asked, but “not being an echo chamber” isn’t shitty.

So yes, I have the gall.

Almost certainly.

They don’t have to, since it’s not a part of the system that it requires them to hold onto the information, but they all invariably hold onto the information to keep training on it, which includes your personal information.

They are likely not using for selling to other people or anything since that’s not their business model at the moment, but it’s probably finding it’s way into the next version in some capacity.

I mean, they literally asked how people felt about skipping their father’s funeral for the given reasons.
If their reasons are childish and disrespectful you can’t really get mad at people for sharing that.

Sure. But also: planning a funeral and communicating your funeral wishes is also for the living, which the father is. and respecting the deceased by honoring their wishes is also for the living, since it’s how we help solidify the norm that we respect people’s final wishes.

Demanding they do it your way is shitty and self centered.

Yeah, how dare that fucking asshole ask his son to attend his funeral just because he cares about “family” or something. It’s like he doesn’t understand that his sisters might ask some slightly uncomfortable questions or gossip!

You’re right that funerals are for the living. They’re a place for the living to grieve, mourn and honor the deceased. Acting like it’s shitty or self centered for someone to express an opinion about their funeral or what’s important to them is honestly disgusting.
The man isn’t asking his son to deal with someone who traumatized him, or violated him in some way: he just doesn’t like the aunts. That’s like refusing to attend the funeral because you just really hate waking up early if you don’t have to.

They don’t need to read you your rights for a field sobriety test. I believe every state has laws that make consent a condition of the drivers license and establish that the tests aren’t self incrimination.

They should have read you your rights but if they didn’t question you after arrest it’s probably academic, since failure to do so would mean the answers you didn’t give to the questions they didn’t ask were inadmissible.

A dwi doesn’t require alcohol. They could just say you were on “something”. It’s a catchall for not being in a fit state to drive.

Anything anyone says here is pointless. You need to talk to a lawyer.