I think the biggest problem is calling it AI to start with. It gives people a huge misrepresentation of what it is actually capable of. It is an impressive tool with many uses, but it is not AGI.
But both are owned by corporate interests. I don't really give a crap about Russia, they have thrown so much capital away on Ukraine that they have no chance against anybody else. I find large corporations and billionaires as the biggest, strongest, and most threatening actors. Even some of the US's most leftist politicians, like AOC, voted against allowing rail workers to strike, which only benefits the investor class and corporate interests.
Well it doesn't have to send much since 99% of information is already public. But I still would not doubt it for a second, there is no reason to think otherwise. There is no benefit to not sending them data and no downside to sending it.
Except it will inevitably lead to discrimination and abuse as it always has in the past. How much of the US justice system is based on harassing poor communities using that kind of excuse? Even if one community is actually less likely to commit crimes than another, if you send 90% of your policing forces there, using the excuse they it is just the way they are and things don't change much, you will find 90% of your crimes there. Even if twice as many unresolved crimes are happening in the the other area.
Yeah I agree, a corporation should not only not care, they should be actively prevented from being allowed to make discriminations base on anything outside of whether they can pay or not. If they sense a potential other problem, at worst it should be reported to police or some other governmental authority, it simply isn't their business otherwise.
To me any other viewpoint inevitably leads to abuse of one group or class or subset of society or another. If they are legally allowed to discriminate in some ways, they will seek to discriminate in others, both in trying to influence law changes to their benefit and in skirting the law when it is convenient and profitable.
There should be ways for a corporation to vet based on severity of the role to match the severity of the candidate, backgrounds included. Cases like, you wouldn’t want to hire a CFO who has been convicted of fraud. Likewise you wouldn’t want a president who’s been convicted of crimes either.
But if you don’t need access to sensitive information, you aren’t dealing with corporate funds or accounting, just a cog in the machine, I don’t think it should matter.
The issue is now, even the smallest issue from years ago is flagged by an AI, which in turn rejects you from a downstream workflow, which doesn’t put you in the hiring managers lap.
Until I can get a robot wife maid im not worried about or even confident I will ever see actual AGI. People have been predicting it for as long as fusion power and while progress has been made, we might still be like Romans dreaming of flight.
Dear sir, what does embodiment actually have to do with agi? Not much different than saying someone that is paralyzed is not intelligence.
More so, our recent advances in AI have massively accelerated robotics evolution. They are becoming smarter, faster, and more capable at an ever increasing rate.
Well if AI isn't capable of running a robotic butler, I very seriously doubt it could possess any real intelligence because that isn't really that difficult of a task. It isn't a requirement for intelligence but more of a test to show it isn't there yet and is likely still quite far away.
Yeah, even 30 years ago I had farmers around me closing down because their about 400 acres wasn't enough to make any useful amount of money on. Under 100 isnt enough for any sort of row crops to even pay for tractor and impliment maintence.
You would need super specialize production of lower volume products. Flowers, maybe rarer berries, otherwise you just have a large garden that lets you sell some corn and pumpkins on a road stand to offset some fertilizer costs.
The biggest problem with audio hardware businesses is 95% of what they say about their products is marketing bullshit. It doesn't take a lot of money to get really good gear, if you put in the research, but its very easy to get ripped off if you don't, spending multiple times more than you need to get a worse result.
Just look at the boxes for half this stuff, quoting peak power for speakers instead of RMS, which is the equivalent of saying "This LED hits 50 watts for .00001 seconds during startup! Wow so amazing! (but don't look at the average 1 watt of output past that)"
The speakers, the cables, the AMPs, even digital source cables nearly all have 90% marketing budgets which drive up the price of many products without increasing quality at all.
Right now I got Presonus Eris studio monitors, however studio monitors might not be to everyones taste because they have a flat response. But I use them because they help hearing speech in modern movies because they don't drown out the mid range.
The very best deals change every few years though. As soon as word of mouth catches and something becomes too popular the business suits look for ways to take advantage. Scrolling old school style forums for audio enthusiast s can lead you to some good lesser known (and thus cheap) brands though.
It really depends on the music you listen to and what your ears are already use to.
I thought my fathers old setup always sounded amazing when I was younger. Coming back to it 20 years later though, it sounds stupidly scooped to my ears. Same speakers but what has changed is the music I was playing on them and what my ears expect to hear. 20 years ago I was more into guitar/bass/drum/vocal music that these speakers were made for.
There is really no such thing as "sound quality". There is just different EQ, frequency range, etc.
Are we not allowed to know where cops are operating? I would support all US cops and ICE and any other state sponsored authority to wear GPS and body cameras at all times.
Do you not feel you'd just be creating a utopia for criminals? You could take that data and create a program to show, amongst other things, minimum response time by area greatly facilitating crime. And then of course you'd also be essentially ending any undercover operations which are very important for breaking up criminal organizations.
I'm fully on board with bad apples in the police being held accountable, but I'm not sure this sort of idea that you're proposing would accomplish much beyond greatly easing crime and criminality.
Any criminals with more than a single brain cell already know what cop response times are in their area. In the 60s-90s everybody had police scanners and cops talked over open radio about their locations and calls but crime still dropped massively in that time.
We already live in the safest time in the last few hundred years atleast, if not of all human history, all these fears about rampant crime are unfounded. And most crimes are committed by people you already know. Hell the biggest source of theft in the US, which dwarfs all other forms of theft combined, is employer wage theft. The cops deserve no trust because they have spent the last 6+ decades doing everything possible to militarize and become more draconian while extorting the poorest of society for fines and funding. Civil forfeiture laws are still abused on the daily and the entire US population knows it. Trust is earned, not given, and US cops and courts have done everything possible to destroy any trust between them and average citizens.
Maybe if I could trust that being executed on the side of a road by a cop in full view of the public and on camera would result in them going to jail people might support them having a bit of leeway, but they have repeatedly destroyed that notion. Cops are a far bigger threat to me than any petty criminals, most criminals were driven to crime through desperation so I can atleast sympathize with some of them. I have yet to meet a cop that wasn't a complete and utter asshole looking for any excuse to arrest or harass me or others around me.
Crime rates were substantially lower in the 50s, and prior, than they are today. The narrative about collapsing crime relies on starting sampling near the 60s at which point crime started exponentially skyrocketing, peaking at the 90s - where we hit the highest rates seen in modern history. The collapse of crime starting around that era correlates with an exponential rise in incarceration. In 1960 something like 400k Americans were imprisoned. Today it's around 2 million with the US having the highest incarceration rate in the entire world.
Similarly, the idea that crime is mostly by people you know is driven by another falsehood. That is only when the relationship between the victim and offender is known. The wide majority of crime has an offender that was either unknown to to the victim, or "relationship unknown." And the total number of cases of people killed by police who were not instigating physical resistance or aggression towards them is very near zero. There have been some really egregious cases, but they are very far and few between.
And yeah the 'cop personality' is pretty common, because it's cultivated in the training. They are going after the sort of people you probably don't even know exist, certainly not in the quantities that they do - especially with this image of reasonably people driven to desperation you've built up in your mind. These people will take any sign of hesitation or weakness as something to exploit. The 'cop personality' is a tool to help them do their job, even moreso than the tools on their belt.
reply