The companies that won’t do well in that scenario are the ones that sell products to the sorts of people who will lose their jobs to AI. But not all companies do that.

(In the extreme case, there might be an economy no longer oriented primarily around what humans want.)

Serve and obey? No. Treat well? Maybe. Meanwhile I’m excited about the possibility of good futures for superhuman AIs themselves, not just for humans.

I wonder how they tracked him down.

I think people (correctly) assume that the poll will be used as evidence to criticize Trump, and if they support him they don’t want to give his opponents that evidence. So they’ll say whatever doesn’t imply criticism of him.

You can have a job that provides meaning, not just income, and you can still keep that job even after establishing sufficient passive income that you don’t strictly need to. Knowing that I don’t need to work anymore would make me feel more secure (especially since I worry that my skills will soon be replicated by AI) but it wouldn’t make me quit my job.

Depends on the price… I’m not going to pay the raccoon Taylor Swift money.

Does she kill you too, or is that billed separately?

Are you comparing the indoor volume inside a data center to the volume of a wind turbine? Because I don’t think people are living inside data centers…

While I agree with your general sentiment, I think you have chosen a metaphor that is almost maximally unpersuasive to your target audience.

Very occasionally I run into something that used to be doable without a smartphone but requires a smartphone now, but that’s quite rare. Not having a smartphone now would be very inconvenient, but generally not more inconvenient than living without a smartphone was before they existed. I expect the same with this technology, if it ever arrives.

I’m not sure why the tone is so negative in this article given that the plan being discussed is to make the technology so useful that most people want it despite the disadvantages. That’s not coercion.

The relevant interpretation is not yours or mine but rather the supreme court’s. You can think that theirs is wrong, but it’s still binding.

I assume the primary purpose of the bans is to signal politicians’ anti-gun attitudes to voters, rather than to pass a law that will stand up in court.

I don’t think it’s something dogs are physiologically capable of doing, and even if it were, I think it’s unlikely that dogs would be trained to do it on command.

The claims about dogs seem quite implausible and call into questions the reliability of the rest of the the article, but I’m not sure how Israel actually plans to go from that to reaching the rather high threshold for providing libel in the USA.

You don’t need calculus to do this. Neither one is accelerating, so “5 seconds after they started moving” is irrelevant. Just calculate the velocity of one in the reference frame of the other by subtracting the vectors: from the point of view of the boy, the girl’s velocity vector has orthogonal components of -5 ft/sec north and 1 ft/sec east, so the magnitude is 26^0.5 ft/sec.

I worked somewhere once where we were literally locked out of a system - the door control computer stopped responding and we couldn’t get into the room it was in to reboot it, because of course it controlled that door.

They didn’t have infinitely many integers back then the way that we do now, so they needed to conserve.

That was fun, but I “cheated” by pressing the button to see which squares were under attack rather than having to work it out myself the way someone solving this would have had to before.

I was a little disappointed that the solution is not unique.

I’m not claiming that he always thinks before speaking, or that he’s thinking before speaking this time. I’m just saying that he happens to have said what a person who did think before speaking would have said.