>the number of shootings that involve misogyny, which is the enforcement mechanism for patriarchy

Please translate this to english

Also fortunately most political extremists don't want to kill just random people. Weapons of mass destruction don't discriminate, making them poor choices.

Why stop at countries? How hard would it be to use ML to detect if the user has the wrong politics? Why stop at just deleting files? How about downloading as much illegal content as possible, sending embarrassing emails, etc? There's so many possibilities here.

I've read that some game devs tried more advanced AIs in FPS games. And the players hated it because they thought it was cheating when it snuck up on them.

I literally can not imagine thinking this is comparable to any other economic event, since the world wars or great depression anyway.

What's the point of this? Cruelly mocking some mentally ill person's posts from years ago, as proof that "the future is unpredictable"?

Or claiming brexit is economically worse than covid. Massively disrupting the world economy for 2 years is less bad than some regulatory changes in a single country? "A crewed moonbase by 2031"?

But the other details are all wrong. There hasn't been a Protestant on the supreme court in awhile, let alone a fundamentalist.

I would be shocked if they did. The common wisdom in the ML community is that training data is fair use. GPT has been operating for 2-3 years now with no legal issues, and this is just a different fine tune of GPT3.

All AIs are trained on copyrighted data scraped from the internet. What you guys want effectively amounts to making most AI illegal. At least outside of big tech companies with large private datasets. Is that the world you prefer to live in?

It has memorized one thing. That doesn't prove it's not intelligent. If anything it's the other way around, we would expect an intelligent being to be capable of memorization.

All I can think of is the Turing test and the AI effect. Eventually we will have an AI that is capable of writing code indistinguishable from a human, and people will STILL say it's "not AI" and "just a code search engine", etc. Obviously this isn't there yet, but it's clearly getting closer.

And for your extreme example to be true, it would have to be the case that the disease doesn't discriminate healthy from weak. But still somehow only kills old people. Because if the disease does discriminate healthy from weak, all of the deaths would be those that would die soon anyway.

Then you must divide whatever estimate you get from that by one hundred. Assuming the highest estimates that it kills around 1% of the victims, which I think are bit high.

I don't see any possible way you could run the numbers and get more than 2 weeks lowered life expectancy. There just are so few young deaths, and the total death rate is very low.

So coronavirus decreases your life expectancy by 3 and a half days. For comparison, sitting in front of a TV for multiple hours a day (as many people have been relegated to doing) decreases your life expectancy by 6 years. Smoking is 8 years. Owning a car and driving it regularly is a few weeks IIRC.