It seems shortsighted of science fiction authors to have not predicted the problems we're currently having with AI. They had decades to think about it. Did any of them predict that people would be using it to cheat on homework, create scams, disrupt social media with spam and terribly off-putting fake images, publish books and songs nobody wrote and nobody wants, all while using obscene amounts of energy? The world doesn't seem more futuristic or in any danger of getting wiped out by some autonomous AI thing that's been given access to nukes, both typical major themes. The world to me just feels more empty and boring. It's just a new tool hucksters can use to defraud people.

Some of the other things the tech oligarchs are pursuing are also cliche themes of science fiction: space exploration, the metaverse, the meta glasses, Musk's Neuralink. So if AI did not turn out as expected, how's the rest of this stuff gonna work out?

I understood that reference and only because my parents rented seasons of their childhood TV shows and forced me to watch them.

In other words, you're saying I use Lemmy because I have no friends. If that's what you mean, you'd be right.

Just 10 9/11s per year. No big deal.

Probably why he does philanthropy.

"God, the company I started has such a reputation as the evil monopolist that we can't even hire talented programmers to make our system decently usable. There's not enough money in the universe that could convince people to work for us. I have to repair the world."

With the exception of 532 very special people, the people alive at the time didn't get to vote on it either.

Crazy. Why can't we devise a system where everyone has their own assigned time in the year to pick crops in a hothouse to spread out the suffering rather than have an underclass of near slaves live in squalor while native Europeans live cushy lives?

The author makes the argument that we shouldn't update the hashing algorithm because an adversary has simpler, cheaper means to achieve the same goal of injecting malicious code into a project. I don't find this a convincing reason. People say the same about Wayland. As I understand it, Wayland makes it so that processes can't see inside windows in other processes or observe the keyboard when one of its windows is not in focus, something X11 apparently doesn't guarantee. They say we shouldn't switch because it would achieve nothing: an adversarial program could just as easily do similar snooping because it has access to the user's home directory. I think that just means we need to also patch the other holes. You can't improve security by doing nothing. It's like you have two insecure doors in your home and you don't bother installing a lock on one because an intruder could easily get through the other one. You have to start somewhere. You can strengthen the hashes and try to patch the other holes (social engineering, etc.) at a later point.

The Communists Have the Music

Just one more lane, bro.

No, it's corruption. Big tech loves the attention and he's giving it to them to repay the favor of helping elect him.