Would having experts capable of telling real videos from fake ones even solve the main problem, that being the problem of public perception? The experts would have an important role in, for example, intelligence agencies, but the public is still going to trust its eyes, and in the presence of multiple contradictory videos, its biases, especially since there’s always going to be someone claiming to be an expert to back them up.

It’s more reasonable than the headline makes it sound. The commissioner pointed out that he’s not in charge of the decision to use Flock cameras and told the group of people who wanted to express their opposition to him anyway to pick one representative who would do so.

I’ve been to meetings where people repeatedly express the same negative opinion of a policy to someone with no control over that policy and I guess that’s what the commissioner wanted to avoid.

That Halloween episode had no effect on me whatsoever.

Ah yes, the 20th century, well known for not having serious problems…

Actually so far 2000 to 2026 is looking much better than 1900 to 1926.

The choice to compare data centers to canals rather than to railroads seems rather arbitrary.

Note that the reduced delay after lunch happens if (as is usual) the doctor skips lunch. Medicine seems like a miserable profession for most specialties. Maybe my career is going to end soon because of AI, but I’m still so glad that I’m a software developer. I get paid a good fraction of what doctors get, but I’m treated so much better.

It’s interesting to see old comics like this or Archie in which people date (or are implied to date) more than one person at a time, so that one person they date can see them on a date with someone else and feel jealous, but the situation isn’t considered cheating. According to my grandmother, who is about Jucika’s age (based on when the comics were first published) and grew up in the Soviet Union, that really was normal when she was young, to the extent that she would deliberately go on dates with other guys to make my future grandfather jealous if she felt like he wasn’t paying enough attention to her, but it was associated with a very strong expectation of waiting until marriage before having sex.

Why? English isn’t my first language but I can’t think of a single time that knowing my native language (not Spanish) was necessary to accomplish something useful in the USA (other than talking to my family, which isn’t relevant for the children learning a foreign language in school). I can’t think of a single time that not knowing Spanish prevented me from accomplishing something useful, either.

Serve and obey? No. Treat well? Maybe. Meanwhile I’m excited about the possibility of good futures for superhuman AIs themselves, not just for humans.

Very occasionally I run into something that used to be doable without a smartphone but requires a smartphone now, but that’s quite rare. Not having a smartphone now would be very inconvenient, but generally not more inconvenient than living without a smartphone was before they existed. I expect the same with this technology, if it ever arrives.

I’m not sure why the tone is so negative in this article given that the plan being discussed is to make the technology so useful that most people want it despite the disadvantages. That’s not coercion.

They didn’t have infinitely many integers back then the way that we do now, so they needed to conserve.

Students fail to make the is/ought distinction.

So? Maybe I’m weird, but I don’t have the moral intuition that an employer generally ought to keep employing people if it can afford to.

How is it that an owl which has lived in captivity for over 26 years is afraid of humans?

Look at Mr. Part of a Community here strutting his stuff.

It’s tragic when people are forced to give up on their dreams and become comedians just to survive.

Well, it is getting ended…