All predictions in this vein are invalid.

If you want to say “even this little bit is unsettling and we should be on guard for more,” fine.

That’s different from “if you think this is only a small amount you are wrong because a small amount will become a large amount.”

You may think it’s as plausible as you like. Obviously you do or you wouldn’t have said it. It’s still by definition absolutely a slippery slope logical fallacy. A little will always lead to more, therefore a little is a lot. This is textbook. It has nothing to do with companies, computers, or goats.

That’s textbook slippery slope logical fallacy.

It’s literally just a document search for their internal employees to use.

Those employees are fallible humans trying to navigate tens of thousands of byzantine technical and regulatory documents all published on various dinosaur platforms.

AI hallucination is a very popular thing to get outraged about right now but don’t forget about good old fashioned bureaucratic error.

My employer implemented AI search/summarization of our docs/wiki/intranet/JIRA systems over a year ago and it has been very effective in my experience. It always links to the source docs, but it permits natural language queries and can do some reasoning about the contents of the documents to pull together information across a sea of text.

Nothing that is mission critical enough to lead to a reactor meltdown should ever be blindly trusted to these tools.

But nothing like that should ever be trusted to the whims of one fallible human, either. This is why systems have protocols, checks and balances, quality controls, and failsafes.

Giving employees a more powerful document search doesn’t somehow sweep all that aside.

But hey, don’t let a rational, down-to-earth argument stand in the way of freaking out about a sci-fi dystopia.

I can’t imagine what it is like for bereaved parents who have recently lost a child. Or for those struggling with fertility issues.

Don’t dress up your petty annoyance at having to share a world with parents as saving the bereaved and barren.

Those are ways to gather empirical results, though they rely on artificial, staged situations.

I think it’s fine to have both. Seat belts save lives. I see no problem mandating them. That kind of thing can still be well founded in data.

It’s hardly either / or though. What we have here is empirical data showing that cars without lidar perform worse. So it’s based in empirical results to mandate lidar. You can build a clear, robust requirement around a tech spec. You cannot build a clear, robust law around fatality statistics targets.

This sounds good until you realize how unsafe human drivers are. People won’t accept a self-driving system that’s only 50% safer than humans, because that will still be a self-driving car that kills 20,000 Americans a year. Look at the outrage right here, and we’re nowhere near those numbers. I also don’t see anyone comparing these numbers to human drivers on any per-mile basis. Waymos compared favorably to human drivers in their most recently released data. Does anyone even know where Teslas stand compared to human drivers?

These fatalities are a Tesla business advantage. Every one is a data point they can use to program their self-driving intelligence. No one has killed as many as Tesla, so no one knows more about what kills people than Tesla. We don’t have to turn this into a bad thing just because they’re killing people /s

I see it as people wanting to commit righteous violence. People have violent impulses, but we usually control them. Some people with extraordinary violent tendencies go looking for a place where it’s “okay” to let them loose. This is not the only example.

It’s true, but so is retooling aviation around hydrogen. This is just a prediction but I think before that ever happens, EITHER we’ll have light batteries that are safer and more effective that Lithium OR we’ll have carbon-neutral ways to produce hydrocarbon fuels that can be used with conventional aircraft.

Hydrogen has struck out on personal electronics and ground transportation. Now it’s angling for aviation where its energy density may matter more. But it hasn’t been losing because of energy density.

He says it so many times in so many ways that he actually starts to make it seem more complex than it is. You start wondering if you’re missing something, because you got it in 6 seconds but 12 minutes later he’s still talking about it.

But its only exhaust is PuRe wATeR!! /s

It still makes me LOL to see people tout this, when battery EVs don’t exhaust anything.

Ironically, I could not reach the end of the list because the fucking ads kept reloading the page and scrolling me to the top. Anyone know which of these 6 would block that?

I hope it bursts soon. It’s not creating any hiring activity, which is what we little people in the industry need. But it is disruptively shifting things around and stealing funding from everything else as companies panic to put forth some kind of trash so they aren’t seen as being “behind.”