Lovable Sidekick

It’s impressive because it’s totally passive - radar can locate incoming drones, but also lets the drones locate the radar antenna. This new technique finds the drones without emitting any kind of telltale signal. So the drones don’t know they’ve been spotted, or even that anyone’s looking.

Which billionaires aren’t flooding money into politics to influence elections? They were doing it long before all the AI drama.

Can’t touch this!

Should be attributed to idiot managers grasping at the latest straw-du-jour to save money. Might as well blame bad carpentry on hammers.

Somebody must be but I don’t know who. The things I listed came from a statistician who had various graphs and charts with historical data, illustrating why the voting was “anomalous”. I don’t remember his name and can’t find him now. All he could do was show how the data, particularly the precision with which anomalous Trump votes were just enough to win but not too much, that painted a picture of someone carefully adjusting the vote on election night. The voting machines also had automated operating system updates shortly before the election, and additional updates shortly after, creating a plausible scenario of software hacks being inserted and removed. So far there has been no hard evidence that anything happened, but the more people who are involved in something the more likely it is that things will happen between them later that motivate some to come forward.

The first stone has fallen out of the wall. I hope it leads to more. If you look at the various numerical anomalies that occurred in swing states only, it becomes very plausible that Harris actually won.

• Mail-in votes closely reflected polling, but election-night voting (i.e. on the machines) contradicted the polls.
• Split-ticket voting occurred much more often than usual - in this case, ballots with a vote for Trump and votes for Democrats the rest of the way. This does happen in elections, but not nearly to the degree it happened in the swing states.
• The anomalies were always enough for Trump to win, but just below the thresholds that would trigger automatic audits.

The general philosophy of US law is that not being explicitly illegal means legal. Robots have no rights whatsoever, but their owners have the same rights as everybody else. Refer to my example of blocking someone’s car into a parking space.

I remember reading the same thing about reddit, slashdot, fark, and other sites. But I like the FASP idea as a way to relieve this.

Super Intelligence good, China Intelligence bad!

1. Tell your employees to use AI without enough training.
2. Tell them to keep doing it without enough money.
3. Profit!

Sorry you’re so burned out, and I hope something comes along to reignite your passion - there’s always that chance.

It has nothing to do with robots having rights - which they don’t. It’s about deliberately obstructing what another person is doing. Calling it “just standing straight up an down” doesn’t change that, any more than if you refused to make way for somebody pushing a cumbersome shopping cart. How do you enforce this? Well, in this example the cops tried to tell the woman to move along, and arrested her when she refused. If a dog damages property you can sue the dog owner. If you have more questions please look them up yourself.

Companies will only give workers a share of the benefits of innovation if they’re forced to - a goal I’d rather try to achieve than call it impossible. People have taken your attitude about all sorts of real things - worker safety rules, food quality standards, the right to unionize… even the idea that people would obey lines painted on the road was originally scoffed at. And yet we have them. So get real yourself.

They don’t have to be special, they just have to be allowed, which depends on local laws that restrict their weight, speed, and other things. This whole line of argument misses my point that giving workers a share of the benefits of innovation would be better than treating the innovations as the enemy.

That’s the kind of bland rationalization an asshole would make for blocking your car into a parking space. The difference is only in the details.

Because robots in the physical world are legal, and in this case using public sidewalks. Online bots are violating terms of service as defined by the human owners of websites.

When police say somebody ignored commands, they mean from them. They don’t get paid to enforce robot commands.

Instead of fighting innovation I think she should be fighting for workers to share its benefits. For example, when automation means less human labor is needed for a task, what if the workers who do that task could benefit by working fewer hours with no cut in pay? In our current system the owners get all the benefits in the form of increased profits - why can’t they be shared? I would think a college professor would be smart enough to see that and work on figuring out how to make it happen, rather than simply standing on the sidewalk.

In a world that worked according to her standard, we would still have armies of bookkeepers doing manual arithmetic and writing numbers in ledgers, because businesses that tried to use computerized accounting systems would have been boycotted. As a result the whole computing industry would have developed much more slowly, if it developed at all, and we wouldn’t have forums such as lemmy for discussions like this.

Aspiring dukes gonna support aspiring kings.

This. You’d almost think people are dumb enough to blame bad management decisions on software.