AI will be classified as munitions (or a law that has similar restrictions) sooner than later. Having a products with the active capabilities to harm people is dangerous.

It may be some time before staff notices a unit is heating up. And if customers aren't paying attention and grab something biologically fragile like milk they could get food poisoning that could hospitalize you for days.

The systems track all kinds of data and are decent at predicting failures before they get expensive.

Take away the security aspect and centralized management is just so much easier and reliable. Humans suck at doing things they were supposed to.

Also adjust power usage depending on time of day and such.

First other people poke at the gray areas of the rules which leads to the "you accepted x, but not y, this must be favoritism when allowing AI posts". Things degrade into insane rule lawyering.

Or, you end up with insane sets of rules and enforcement that kill the project. We've seen a lot of project leaders recently just act kind of mental. Quite often it will lead to the project forking and falling apart.

Well written rules for a project matter even more than well written code.

Maybe many were too young for the cold war. But it really does feel like we're setting a new one up.

With dangerous chemicals and radioactive materials these are generally pretty easy to classify. This said, after the physical behaviors, the above technologies can induce behavior changes in humans because they exist. After nukes, a lot more people had issues with extental dread. It also causes n-order interactions that get very hard to predict. For example MAD or laws against using chemical weapons.

And these are weapons with a very easy to map out causal chain in their own behavior. You can't prompt a chemical weapon to make a decision.

We come up with agentic AI and all of a sudden a lot of rules on causality break. In a harness they are a causal agent. They can interact with a digital reality, and with the right tools and/or human contacts they can causally effect analog reality.

Anyone that says 'programmed' about an LLM almost certainly does not know what they are talking about and can be summarily ignored.

Not anything interesting here that hasn't already been stated 20 other times.

While we can automate away most things, human learning doesn't seem to be one of them.

In school this lead to a lot of difficulties for me, one in writing those comments out for other people to understand, but the other seemed to be that when reading the average statements used in education for teaching I could map the same strings of language to multiple and sometimes conflicting statements because of the inexactness of the language used.

It turns out explaining concepts while leaving little room for different interpretation is hard.