That's just not true. Nick Bostrom published "Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies" 12 years ago. The book is clear evidence that people were very much seriously thinking about the potential dangers of AI.

If we count the Golem stories then the idea of a human made artificial servant rebelling against us because of our hubris is hundreds of years old.

You only think that because you had the misfortune to be born down a deep gravity well. While that's the only kind of life we have evidence for, doesn't mean that's the only kind of life which can occur.

Sentients who evolved inside or on the surface of an asteroid would maybe think that getting to orbit is just a careless hop away.

That being said I agree with the general idea that any alien entity who visits us has likely went through industrialisation and related destruction.

I don’t get upset. I just don’t know what that means. What would that look like in practice?

Lets see some simple example. 18 U.S. Code § 912: “Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

How would you write that in mathematical formalization?

And then how would you make a metamath verifier judge if Robert J. Rippee committed it on January 1, 1991? I’m sure you can google the case(United States v. Rippee, 961 F.2d 677), but a short summary: “On January 1, 1991, officers from the National City, Illinois, Police Department stopped Rippee for making an illegal U-turn. The officers let Rippee go without a ticket, however, when he told them he was a United States Marshal on his way to break up a fight at Fannies' Night Club in Brooklyn, Illinois. […] Rippee stipulated that he was not and had never been a United States Marshal.“

How would something like that look like under your proposed system?

Don’t they? Here in the UK at least participation in programs like that is a requirement of unemployment benefits. One has to attend a job center where one is given advice, sometimes training can get enrolled in trainung and etc. Not saying that they do a great job of it but they seems to at least try to do what you describe. At least nominally.

I'm sure we could "fix" it. But changing the engines doesn't seem to be the right way to achieve that.

It is not even clear from the article that there were anything wrong with the output. She has a car of that make. And it doesnt appear to be in dispute that she drove nearby.

It simply is the case that “being nearby” in itself is not enough evidence that you were involved in a crash. Especially when the colour doesn’t match and the vehicle is not damaged.

It looks cool! But man is it frustrating that nothing is consistent. Some things change when I click. Some things change when I drag. Some things seemingly doesn't do anything at all.

If it is intentionally like that, great. But I just don't find the experience pleasant.

They were stalling you. You are in someone’s succesfull quarterly KPI metric, as a succesfully avoided return.

> You seem convinced this is somehow my fault

That the printer is not working is 100% Bambu’s fault. That they got away with it is yours.

> As someone who wanted a “just works” solution, what I got instead was something faulty

So there is a misunderstanding here. When people describe a 3d printer as “just works” they mean that it has the sensors and firmware smarts so you don’t need to become an expert to get good quality prints out of it. With previous generations of printers when the print was crap you had to look at the process and tune a ton of parameters to get it okay. Maybe your bed wasn’t flat enough? Or hot enough? Or unevenly heated? Or you needed to tweek an extrusion parameter? Or speed it up or slow it down? Or increase the hot end temp? Or increase the cooling fan rpm?

With a modern 3d printer (like the Bambu ones, but not only them) you don’t have to become an expert. Their engineers nailed down all the parameters which can be nailed down, and the rest which they can’t they added sensors for so the printer can measure them as an in-field calibration.

With the older generation of printers if it is not printing well, oh boy, you should probably get better at tuning it. With the new generation of printers if it is not printing well then the company who made the printer failed you. If it is not printing at all, because it failed the calibration then that’s the printer telling you it is broken.

It is like… imagine that you want a nice picture of your loved ones. Buying an older type of printer was like buying oil paint and a brush. You can’t just hope it will do the picture on its own. You could get the picture you wanted but you had to acquire serious skills first. No art supply shop would accept a return of your paint and brush just because the picture you paint with it are kinda crap.

In contrast buying a new generation of 3d printer is like buying a polaroid camera. It requires way less skill than the oil paint and the brush. You point, you shoot, out comes the picture. If the picture doesn’t come out the polaroid camera is broken and you should return it.

The polaroid camera is “just works” compared to the oil paint and brush even if every second camera is broken comming out of the factory. Because it is not a statement about their defect rate, but a statement about the design philosophy.

Where do you see the commenter say this?

So it was dead on arrival. You should have contacted support who would have figured out if you need the whole unit replaced or just part of it. If they are not responsive enough just send back the whole thing.

What would you do if you buy a laptop and it never passes the Power-On Self-Test? I would just return it to whoever i bought it from.

> I thought it was the more turn key option but it hasn’t been my experience.

I mean it is. For everyone who i know who owns one. Every company will sell an occasional dud.

Either it got damaged in transit, or the fault somehow escaped their QA, or you managed to screw up the assembly by not plugging in something, or leaving a transit fixture in somehow. Either way contacting support is the correct way to get to the bottom of it.

Come to think of it when i bought my Sherline lathe initially the motor didn’t turn on when i plugged it in. I wrote an email to the distributor who got me in contact with someone from Sherline. They asked me to check a thing which fixed the issue.

They make mills and lathes. They are really nice little machines, great for hobby use. We have one lathe from them in our hackspace for example, and it is a delight. Of course you have to understand the limitations of the tool, but that is true for every machine.

That being said, it is just a lathe. There is nothing particularly complicated about it. At least not at their complexity level. If you can manufacture machine tools you can make one very easily. If you don't have the manufacturing capability you won't.

The reason i'm saying this is because "free as in freedom" and "open source" are properties of plans / source code. If you happen to have a lathe factory, the lack of a lathe plan is not going to stop you. You are just going to design one for yourself. And if you don't have a factory which can make a lathe, then why do you care about plans for a lathe being open source?

I guess the factory itself could be "community owned". If you have a business plan, or a large pile of cash, now is the time to approach them that you want to buy everything from them. But I'm not sure how "community owned" would even work for this use case.

Basically what I'm saying this is hardware, not software. The terms you use don't make much sense in this case.

And that is perfectly fair. But what is the “possibly days” based on? Did they see the two whales acting weirdly a day later, but then they didn’t see them four days later? Or is it just based on the hunch of the person who made the observation? Or is it the hunch of the researcher? And if it is a hunch is it based on knowledge of similar reported events in the past? Is it based on the observed state of the adult whale or maybe the state of the carcas?

Why possibly days and not possibly weeks?

> but the fact that the mother stayed for at least some hours appears to be confirmed

Is it confirmed? So that’s the problem. The hours are comming from the same sentence which describes the days. Both by a person who did not whitness the event personally. Your reading is that the second part of the sentence (the days) is speculation, while the first is reporting on observed fact. My reading is that the journalist did a bad job separating the first hand observed facts from the second hand speculation. We just simply won’t know until someone asks the Captain what exactly they have seen and writes it down.

> it’s hard to know and prove something with 100% certainty

But it is not hard to describe what was observed, and clearly separate it from what they think or speculate. Also it is not hard to ask the person who actually did the observing to describe what they have seen, instead of it being described by someone else who was not present.

What we know from the article that Rescue boat Capt. Andrew Mulville whitnessed the two whales behaving unusually. They also took a video of the behaviour. We don’t know how long they whitnessed it, or if there were multiple separate observations or just the one.

And then we have Dr. Olaf Meynecke who was not personaly present and says that “She remained close to the calf, maintaining eye contact and positioning herself next to her calf over several hours and maybe even days.” It is valid to ask what is that based on? Is Dr Meynecke narrating what Capt Mulville seen? Is he saying that based on his knowledge of other times when behaviour like this was observed? Is it just speculation? There is nothing wrong with speculation but it is better be cleanly separated from the description of what was seen.

The reason why this is frustrating is because something interesting (and likely supremely tragic) happened to these whales. But we are hearing about it in a distorted fashion. It is a game of telephone, where the captain seen it, told about it to the researcher, who told the journalist who is telling it to us. It is fundamentally important to keep it clear which parts are comming from the captain’s first hand account and which parts are speculation or elaboration by the researcher.

I higly doubt that. Maybe in university level courses. Most people’s only experience with mathematics is an elementary or high school teacher who were probably themselves at best mediocre at the subject. Simply because of selection factors. Those who are good at math are encouraged to go into STEM. There will be of course exceptions everywhere, but that is not what “usually” happens.

And thats just about being good at maths the school subject, which is distinct from being “ good mathematicians” the science / research topic. Mathematicians are few and far between, simply because it is a specialist subject. There just aren’t enough of them to go around for them to be the formative experience around math for most people.

Nothing nuclear is easy. People will want to make sure you are not going to contaminate the atmosphere, or the aquifers. Not just on the day of the explosion, but long term. They will want to know your plans about how you will contain the nuclear contamination for thousands of years.

And then everyone and their uncle will sue you for any property damage they think they suffered as a result of your engineering. Which can be everyone who owns real estate for hundreds of miles?

But apart from those things there are really no major legal problems with it.

I believe you are wrong on that. Do you mean large language models can’t play chess?

I mean they are. That is the reason they haven’t sent balistic missiles to the same airfield. They could have sent the same agents who placed those drones to the fence of the airport with a shoulder mounted missile and shot down the planes as they were departing. Or even shoot them down on the ground.

Or similarly they could send a submarine and disrupt the railway services of the Netherlands with missiles from that.

Those would be clearly attributable actions which trigger an immediate military response. That is the reason why they don’t do them.

You look at the actions they take and conclude that they don’t have any restraint or worries. But you should also be looking at the actions they could have but did not take to see that they are in fact restrained and probably quite a bit worried. If they werent they would play the game differently.