In my state, that would itself be a traffic violation, so yes I would. The leftmost lane on an interstate highway is reserved for passing. An autonomous vehicle cruising in that lane (regardless of speed) would therefore be programmed in a way that deliberately violates this law.

Enforcement is its own challenge, whether robots or humans.

Bonus points if you branch deep enough to lose the original thought.

If you expect the government to make a tender offer on the largest market-cap companies, they sure as heck _are_ paying for r&d indirectly. And a lot more!

I appreciate that anyone saying this is probably already on the same wavelength as me, but I don't find this to be true for myself. Many times, complex application features end up represented as a series of related, but atomic/meaningful changesets. I want the pull request to make sense as a whole, but expect that code review or audits are easier to accomplish diff-by-diff.

I see it like building a recipe. I want to hide all of the false starts, sloppy mistakes, do-overs, and checkpoints, because they are useless from a historical standpoint. But I still may want to publish a sequence of changes that accomplishes something.

In any case, if everyone had an omniscient genie, then free will would clearly not exist the way we understand it. That doesn't sound like a fun world, regardless of financial markets!

There's some MASSIVE selection bias here. Note that we're significantly more capable than anything you listed. Where are the Neanderthals? They're all long dead, because they were credible competition but we were just better.

In a hypothetical scenario of superintelligent or supercapable AI imbued with some physical capability of force, we'd be the marginally weaker species before we hit the threshold of "pet".