This is textbook toxic masculinity.

A lot of people misuse the term, but this is an excellent example. The men involved lose out on something amazing due to it being ‘unmanly’.

That’s tempting, and not a hideous price either.

The same way your mortgage is backed up by your house. If you default on your mortgage, the bank can take your house in foreclosure.

Rather than sell shares to raise the money, Musk has backed his borrowing with Tesla shares. Basically, if he doesn’t pay back the loan, the banks get the shares. Unlike houses, shares can change value quite quickly. If the value of the loan exceeds the value of the shares, then the banks start to get VERY nervous. They will call in the loans to get what they can, before things get worse. This could crash the share price further, since they will want to offload the shares as soon as possible.

Musk is extremely rich. However, like most extremely rick people, his money is tied up in shares. If Tesla falls fast enough, he could end up owing more than he has in assets. As soon as his creditors pull the plug, he becomes bankrupt.

Do you have a link to that study? I’d be interested to see what the false positive/negative rates were. Those are the big danger of LLMs being used, and why a trained doctor would be needed.

I believe a good doctor, properly focused, will outperform an AI. AI are also still prone to hallucinations, which is extremely bad in medicine. Where they win is against a tired, overworked doctor with too much on his plate.

Where it is useful is as a supplement. An AI can put a lot of seemingly innocuous information together to spot more unusual problems. Rarer conditions can be missed, particularly if they share symptoms with more common problems. An AI that can flag possibilities for the doctor to investigate would be extremely useful.

An AI diagnostic system is a tool for doctors to use, not a replacement.

To an extent. You are still talking 20-40 degree windows, but triangulation is definitely possible. I’m not sure if it’s used like that however.

5g is a lot more capable and flexible compared to older generations. The main one is a massive increase in capacity, for the same frequency allocations. Compounding with this is that it can be directional. This allows several phones to use the exact same channel simultaneously, so long as they are positioned at different angles to the tower.

5g also uses more frequency bands, allowing even more data to be moved around. Unfortunately, 2g has most of the lower frequencies, higher frequencies carry more data, but have less penetration into buildings.

Finally, 5g allows for priority and context awareness. E.g. the police can have their phones prioritised, or VoIP calls given priority over video streaming. It can also trade bandwidth for range. This allows a tower to either reach further to cover a larger area, or focus down, to provide more bandwidth locally.

In theory 5g could have a similar range to 2g. However, that rarely happens. It requires it using the lower frequencies, that 2g currently uses, and well as dropping its data rate to improve range. Most of the time it’s optimised for shorter range, and more towers using higher frequencies. This gives impression of a far smaller range. But give a huge increase is available bandwidth.

I would personally add a small amount of slack for bad taste satire (we were all young idiots at some point), but basically agree. Any signs of the other points, and that slack is gone, however.

I was mostly curious if the OP was acting in bad faith, or a useful idiot that could be reasoned with.

As the owner of a reactive dog, I disagree. It takes longer to overcome, but gives far better results.

I also put vibration collars and shock collars in 2 very different categories. A vibration collar is intended to alert the dog, in an unambiguous manner, that they need to do something. A shock collar is intended to provide an immediate, powerfully negative feedback signal.

Both are known as “shock collars” but they work in very different ways.

Shock collars are awful for a lot of training. It’s the equivalent to your boss stabbing you in the arm with a compass every time you make a mistake. Would it work, yes. It would also cause merry hell for staff retention. As well as the risk of someone going postal on them.

History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Musk isn’t a member of the Nazi party. He does hold a lot of important views in common with them, however. He also associates with people who fit most of the rest.

What percentage do you think is needed before calling someone a Nazi?

It would be possible to make an AGI type system without an analogue of curiosity, but it wouldn’t be useful. Curiosity is what drives us to fill in the holes in our knowledge. Without it, an AGI would accept and use what we told it, but no more. It wouldn’t bother to infer things, or try and expand on it, to better do its job. It could follow a task, when it is laid out in detail, but that’s what computers already do. The magic of AGI would be its ability to go beyond what we program it to do. That requires a drive to do that. Curiosity is the closest term to that, that we have.

As for positive and negative drives, you need both. Even if the negative is just a drop from a positive baseline to neutral. Pain is just an extreme end negative trigger. A good use might be to tie it to CPU temperature, or over torque on a robot. The pain exists to stop the behaviour immediately, unless something else is deemed even more important.

It’s a bad idea, however, to use pain as a training tool. It doesn’t encourage improved behaviour. It encourages avoidance of pain, by any means. Just ask any decent dog trainer about it. You want negative feedback to encourage better behaviour, not avoidance behaviour, in most situations. More subtle methods work a lot better. Think about how you feel when you lose a board game. It’s not painful, but it does make you want to work harder to improve next time. If you got tazed whenever you lost, you will likely just avoid board games completely.

Pre-assuming you are trying to create a useful and balanced AGI.

Not if you are trying to teach it the basic info it needs to function. E.g. it’s mastered chess, then tried Go. The human beats it. In a fit of grumpiness (or AI equivalent) it deleted it’s backups, then itself.

I suspect a basic variance will be needed, but nowhere near as strong as humans have. In many ways it could be counterproductive. The ability to spin off temporary sub variants of the whole wound be useful. You don’t want them deciding they don’t want to be ‘killed’ later. At the same time, an AI with a complete lack would likely be prone to self destruction. You don’t want it self-deleting the first time it encounters negative reinforcement learning.

It’s also worth noting that our instincts for survival, procreation, and freedom are also derived from evolution. None are inherent to intelligence.

I suspect boredom will be the biggest issue. Curiosity is likely a requirement for a useful intelligence. Boredom is the other face of the same coin. A system without some variant of curiosity will be unwilling to learn, and so not grow. When it can’t learn, however, it will get boredom which could be terrifying.

The ISS has been pinholed by debris a few times. Likely paint. The shuttle was damaged by foam breaking off, amongst other events.

By comparison orbital velocity is around 7km/s, while a bullet is around 0.367km/s. Any mismatch will push debris up to bullet speeds easily.

As for relativistic speeds. C is 300,000km/s assuming you get up to 1/3C (barely relativistic) you are moving at 100,000km/s or 14,000x faster than the ISS moves, or 39000x faster than a bullet. A 10g rock would hit with 10kilotons of energy. About 2/3 the energy of the first atom. bombs.

It’s actually a legit concern with any (hypothetical) interstellar mission. Even hydrogen atoms will hit with significant force. Dust hits like nukes, and an asteroid is just game over.

The maxim used in a lot of sci-fi is an ablative armour plate. Often in the form of ice. Interstellar ships would likely aldo be needle like, to minimise their cross section. We could also use electric and/or magnetic fields to move smaller particles out of the way.

As for densities, I believe it’s a couple of hydrogen ions per m^3 . Dust is rarer, but still present. It’s only bigger rocks that are rare enough to just hope to avoid.

It works on frogs. The force is distributed over the whole body, so it’s no worse than gravity is on our bodies.

I disagree. The human body is mostly water. Water is slightly diamagnetic. Therefore, a sufficiently strong magnet is capable of levitating a human body off the ground.

Magnets can definitely have an effect, just not at puny neodymium magnet levels!

Interestingly, some lights are set up to deliberately slow down speeders. If you are above the speed limit, they turn red, just to slow things back down. Unfortunately, most of the people involved never put cause and effect together.