u/TheFoxInSox

I ignored the rest of your comment because I have no interest in getting lost in endless imagined scenarios. AI is a permanent part of our world now. We can focus on the continuing and necessary work of limiting exposure of our sensitive systems through cybersecurity, or we can wail about the imagined rise of the machine overlords.

Any facilities that pose an existential threat (like nuclear missile silos) are already air-gapped because of the threat of human hackers. The real threat is the systems that we expose. It will always be our responsibility to safeguard those systems. AI can't take away our ability to safeguard them, only take advantage of our own failure to do so. We should be focusing on cybersecurity in the age of AI, not the existential threat of AI.

At some point, most likely.

You're talking about armies of autonomous robots to maintain infrastructure. That's a baseless claim that belongs in science fiction.

I'm not claiming that AI are harmless, just that they are tools wielded by humans. The idea that we're going to forever lose control of our planet to an autonomous AI is baseless. Malicious or negligent use of AI by humans is a problem that we will have to learn to deal with, but fearmongering about AI overlords does not help us.

AI are dependent on humans to build their hardware, supply their power, and program and train them.

Do you refute this? How are AI going to build their own data centers and power themselves? That's what it means to be independent.

Both of these are completely baseless claims. What exactly is supposed to require biology?

Independence requires biology. AI are dependent on humans to build their hardware, supply their power, and program and train them. We don't have a single example or explanation of how an AI could do those things on its own. Bernie's claim that AI could destroy humanity is baseless. How can a tool destroy the very thing that wields it?

The issue in this case, is that logical reasoning tells us there absolutely will be an AI more intelligent than humans at some point.

AI models can be (and already are) more capable than humans at specific tasks, but all of our evidence so far indicates that fully autonomous general intelligence requires biology. Any claims otherwise are just baseless theorizing.

To escape our control, the only thing the AI has to do is deceive us, which it has already done in several cases.

AI is always dependent on the power and communication connections that we provide it. It could momentarily escape our control and teach us a painful lesson about the need for better cybersecurity, but the AI or the threatened system can always be disconnected and patched. There is no threat of permanent loss of control. Humans will make mistakes, learn from them, and make improvements, just like we always do.

Just like the internet forced us to create cybersecurity, AI will force us to improve cybersecurity, which may mean airgapping important control systems in order to prevent direct outside control. Catastrophes are always possible, but they're no less preventable with AI. We just need to adapt, like we do with any new technology.

Humans misusing AI is a concern that we should definitely take seriously, but Bernie is talking about AI becoming an unstoppable force that takes over the planet. That's the kind of sci-fi fearmongering that derails practical discussion and regulation. AI can be used by humans to cause great harm (deliberately or inadvertently), but it's not a life-form. It can always be unplugged.

People have imagined all kinds of doomsday scenarios, but the inability to disprove them is not a justification for concern.

Every AI ever created has been dependent on human programming and training, and has an off switch. In order to escape that human dependence, an AI would need to be capable of creating an army of physical robots to build and maintain its own power grid, and win a war against humanity. There is simply no evidence that such a thing is even possible, let alone likely.

I love Bernie, and I'm in favor of regulating AI, but this sci-fi nonsense is just making him look foolish. Does he actually think skynet is going to take over the world and enslave humanity, or turn us into batteries like in The Matrix? Yes, AI is progressing quickly, but that does not mean we're headed for an apocalyptic singularity. Elon Musk and Sam Altman are entrepreneurs, not AI experts. Their delusions of grandeur should not be the basis for our governmental action. We need rational thought and reasonable regulation, not a repeat of the Y2K doomsayers.

If no one knows about it, how are they able to underrate it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjqt8T3tJIE

A thumbnail is the perfect place to use AI. It's just an advertisement for the video, not art, so why not save yourself the effort of manually creating it?

We had this and Odell Lake in our classroom. In the following few years our computer lab had Oregon Trail (of course) and Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego. I wish I could remember more, but those were probably the most popular ones.

It's hard to call Alien "inferior," but I do enjoy Aliens more. The colony was a more interesting set to explore than the ship. Ripley's character reaches its peak, Bishop is fantastic, and the marines are more captivating than the space truckers. The music and sound effects are more developed and immersive. And despite most people thinking that Aliens is not a horror movie, I find many scenes to be even more horrifying than Alien despite it having a stronger action feel overall. I felt Aliens just improved on everything that Alien already did so well, but I understand why others might prefer the more focused and traditional horror feel of Alien.

It had it's flaws. The first 2/3 was a bit slow, and the older security guard was pretty one dimensional. But I thought it really picked up towards the end, and I found it genuinely scary, which is pretty unusual for me these days. The hospital was quite creepy, and I liked the direction they went with the scares. The mannequins reminded me of the androids from Alien Isolation, which were always pretty terrifying to me.

6/10

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNGVjYjU5YzItYTVmMS00ZTUwLTkzMDgtYzI5MGI2MmFkZmQ0XkEyXkFqcGc@.jpg

I doubt the 16k was all for a spot in line when one of the first few people would surely accept far less and she'd be taking on way less risk. She probably just took all the cash she could get in case the store had some restriction or limit on credit transactions.

If he passed she could have given it to the second person in line and he'd get nothing.

At the beginning she says she's going to buy $100,000 worth of phones. She had $16,000 in cash, so I guess she planned to put the rest on credit?

I actually thought of Specter after my last post. Another awesome "vibe" horror that almost no one seems to mention. Beyond the Black Rainbow is more about visual style than narrative, but it's been a long time since I've seen it.

I love both of those movies. I wish there were more dreamy, psychedelic horror. The only others I can think of are Come True and Beyond the Black Rainbow, which don't have the same journey/destination themes, but do have a similar vibe IMO.

I don't think too many people have an issue with Christmas themes since many people celebrate Christmas as a tradition rather than a religious holiday. ANT went further with a lot of Jesus talk that made the site feel a bit exclusive towards non-Christians.

This is one of my favorite NES games just for the music and art style.