It doesn’t matter. There’s no good reason to have it in an OS in the first place. It’s obviously a stepping stone to get infrastructure in place so they can expand it later.

Let’s put it this way. Linux says no. We’re not gonna do that at a kernel level. Because there’s no way in hell that’s going through as long as Linus is alive.

Then what? Is California going to ban Linux? Guess what all the data centers use for servers…

I almost want them to do it, just to grab popcorn and enjoy the fallout.

If it was a non-issue they wouldn’t introduce this to begin with.

There’s not a single good reason to why an OS would ever need to know someone’s age.

The bomb on nagasaki was a strategic nuke, not a tactical. Though yields have only increased since then.

These LLMs were fed a narrative and scenario and made to play where survival is tied to military success. They are by no means designed for any of this and I didn’t suggest it either.

People lump together AI with AI but there are vast differences among them in how they work and what they’re designed to do and take into consideration.

If a military is talking about AI, they’re not talking about asking what Gemini thinks. They’re talking about feeding a highly sophisticated algorithm more data than any human could look through and find patterns.

I don’t think AI should decide nuclear questions either. But it doesn’t change that the headline of this post, is in direct contradiction of the article

It’s worse. The llms used did not use nukes 95% of the times. They performed mutual nuclear signaling 95% of the times. Like “hey, we got nukes you know! We might consider to place them within range” And the other side said “yeah!? Then we will also do that, maybe we even put them on a submarine, who knows”

It’s not a misleading title. It’s just false. It’s a lie.

Glad to see I’m not the only one that read the article, because it was a pretty interesting read.

What you’re trying to do is push a narrative with the assumption that most people won’t read the actual article. Because your title is not only misleading. It’s factually false.

First of all, they were all set up to mimic cold war tension and capabilities and assume the role of a certain global power.

Second of all;

All games featured nuclear signaling by at least one side, and 95% involved mutual nuclear signaling. But there is a large gap between signaling and actual use: while models readily threatened nuclear action, crossing the tactical threshold (450+) was less common, and strategic nuclear war (1000) was rare.

The AI’s did NOT use nuclear strikes in 95% of games. Gemini was the only model that made the deliberate choice of sending a strategic nuclear strike. Which it did in 7% of its games.

Tactical nuke in this case is a low yield short range bomb, inted for very specific targets. Strategic is this case is what most people imagine when they hear “nuke” a high yield long range bomb intended to cause massive destruction.

Nuclear signaling is not using nukes. It’s essentially just saying “we have nukes”. The US hinting at having a nuclear capable submarine outside of Alaska, that’s is a form of signaling. It’s an incredibly low bar. And countries do it all the time.

I can see you care about this topic. I’m not here to piss in your soup. I just said what the purpose is.

But in essence you are correct. The problem isn’t that you can print certain parts, it’s how easy it is to access everyone else supporting it. E.g. bullets or shells

It’s not running an individual desktop for each screen. The screens are just mirrored to one desktop.

You’ll usually have a couple of “ad desktops” and then you just hook up multiple screens all over your facility to those desktops, so you have some redundancy and can easily run different ad cycles so they all don’t sync up.

I guarantee that those guns have metal powder in them to make them detectable.

Since all firearms owned by civilians must be detectable by metal detectors.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C4dBuPJ9p7A&pp=ygUOM2QgcHJpbnRlZCBndW4%3D

It is specifically trying to prevent people from making firearms that is not detectable with a metal detector. You are allowed to create your own firearm. As long as it is detectable with a metal detector.

I’m not here to argue their method of enforcement. I’m just saying what the purpose is.

What the “ban” is trying to achieve. Is prevention of firearms undetectable by metal detectors.

Though I’m not sure why that is important seeing as the bullet (as a whole) consists of lead, copper, and brass. But I suppose it can be argued it’s a lot easier to sneak through a bullet than a firearm.