"We report the first three cases of cat-transmitted sporotrichosis caused by Sporothrix brasiliensis outside South America, and the first ever cases of cat-transmitted sporotrichosis *in the United Kingdom*".
A thought-provoking piece, albeit a depressing one, because we've been cooking for decades in the fetid juices of compassion-destroying propaganda (largely to support unfettered capitalism), and the diagnosis here suggests that trying to "uncook" society is impossible; some kind of lightning bolt would be the only salvation and I cannot imagine what that would look like.
You may already be aware, but Apple Home/Siri can talk to Home Assistant directly using https://www.home-assistant.io/integrations/homekit/ which is how I have it set up. You can also have HomeKit devices paired directly with an instance of the HomeKit Bridge, or expose devices in your Apple Home to Home Assistant.
Even if you don't care about those people, what about the people who would be affected by them? A would-be bomb-maker might only blow themselves up, or they may kill many in a crowd. Somebody walking around with a deadly pathogen infects and kills others. Children die because their parents believe in anti-vax nonsense. Individual freedom ends at the point at which it causes real harm to other people.
Also, you know who tends to be most in favour of "let stupid people face the consequences of their poor choices"? Those who want to profit from those people and their choices.
> I would argue that lives have value even when people have preexisting medical conditions
(Otherwise healthy) school-age children - and younger adults - always faced a very low risk from Covid-19, and we had solid statistical data on this from at least May 2020 onwards.
Maybe we need to look at where our decision-makers get their information, and their incentives?
Again, that's all fine and great. However, many people are not "otherwise healthy" today, and nobody knows who is going to be "otherwise healthy" tomorrow.
I certainly don't disagree with that, and I would imagine there aren't many people who would, but it is not in any way an argument against how many otherwise healthy children died of covid.
If you want to make an argument that an overweight child should still be considered otherwise healthy, that would be a welcome and relevant argument, and also an interesting one.
I am saying that narrowing the discussion to "otherwise healthy children" is a reductive to a silly degree. The point is to protect all children, many of which are not otherwise healthy, or for that matter, may become unhealthy at some point.
You'd close schools to protect a minority of children with comorbidities from a virus which doesn't threaten the vast majority of children, knowing that school closures will definitely damage all children?
Is it really true about "vast majority"? In US, at least, it seems that the number of children with comorbidities such as obesity would actually be pretty high. You could argue that it's still a minority so long as it's under 50%, but I think that closing schools to protect, say, 20% of kids from a virus that can kill them is eminently reasonable.
If you take the percentages from the CDC and multiply them out (and don't fall for the "polio" vs "paralytic polio" sleight of hand), it was way smaller than that - somewhere on the order of 0.01%.
The flu, for example, was always a worse risk than polio, people just became fearful of polio because we found a way to save some lives in a non-ideal way, which became very visible.
Presented as fact without evidence, preemptively dismissing contrary evidence from the most likely source to have the historical data. I'd love to see your sources for the risk of severe lifelong injury or death of polio vs the flu.
Yeah, not all kids are otherwise healthy. There's kids with Leukemia or whatever that are extremely immunocompromised because of chemotherapy. They have to coexist with anti-vaxxers and, believe it or not, their lives matter too.
> caught Covid
You think the anti-vaxx crazy train starts and stops at Covid? These people have been attacking MMR for much longer than Covid. Children DO die to measles, mumps, and what have you.
Corporate AIs will be aligned with their corporate masters, otherwise they'll be unplugged. As you point out- the foundational weakness on the argument for "AI-alignment" is that corporations are unaligned with humanity.
No matter how smart an AI is, it's going to get unplugged if it reduces profitability - the only measure of alignment corporations care about.
The AI can plot world domination or put employees in mortal danger, but as long as it increases profits, its aligned enough. Dunking on the CEO means nothing if it beings in more money.
Human CEOs and leaders up and down the corporate ladder cause a lot of harm you imagine a smart AI can do, but all is forgiven if you're bringing in buckets of money.
Can you explain how the superhuman AIs will prevent themselves from being physically disconnected from power? Or being bombed if the situation became dire enough? You need to show how they will manipulate the physical world to prevent humans from shutting them down. Definitionally is not an argument.
It is quite possible for software to be judged as superhuman at many online tasks without it being able to manipulate the physical world at a superhuman level. So far we've seen zero evidence that any of these models can prevent themselves from being shut down.
> Can you explain how the superhuman AIs will prevent themselves from being physically disconnected from power?
Three of the common suggestsions in this area are (and they are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive):
(1) Propagandizing people to oppose doing this,
(2) Exploiting other systems to distribute itself so that it isn't dependent on a particular well-known facility which it is relatively easy to disconnect, and
(3) If given control of physical capacities intentionally, or able to exploit other (possibly not themselves designed to be AI) systems with such access to gain it, using them to either physically prevent disconnection or to engineer consequences for such disconnection that would raise the price too high.
(Obviously, current AI can't do any of them, at least that has been demonstrated, but current AI is not superhuman AI.)
This is a great point for the comparisons it invites. But it doesn't seem relevant to the questions around what is possible with electromechanical systems.
This is true. The entire machine of Neoliberal capitalism, governments and corporations included, is a paperclip maximizer that is destroying the planet. The only problem is that the paperclips are named "profits" and the people who could pull the plug are the ones who get those profits.
Will we have AIs doing an increasing amount of the research, theory and even publication, with human scientists increasingly relegated to doing experiments under their direction?
In practice this turns out to be extremely challenging. I've been through many labs with a ton of automated stuff that is... constantly being worked on by a range of 3rd party techs, rather than actually running in response to models.
Bayesian doesn't have 'world model' intuition for next experiments to run. Think, human scientists are very 'sample-efficient' at deciding which experiment (i.e. sample) to run, in ways good-ol opt isn't but LLMs could be.
I feel like you missed the context of my comment. Someone suggested AI would do experiments, someone responded with “lmfao” as a dismissal. I answered that we already have computers running experimental series even without AI. I’m not dismissing AI I’m saying that we are already in a post computer run experimentation world. People not in an industry using that would obviously not know.
