erehweb

I don't think so. The article notes that bad AI produces pictures of food that doesn't look like real food, and is unappetizing - something different to what you're talking about.

See also the BBC kids show "Horrible Histories" which gives an Abba-song parody of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuZsueUBvdU

Crucially, the FAA is not a part of United Airlines, and the FDA is not a part of Pfizer. If there weren't any FDA, then the safety group in Pfizer would be a lot weaker.

As the article notes, the sentence "This sentence is written in English" is well understood, and true. "This sentence is written in French" is also well understood and false.

It's difficult to tie changes in customer retention to not having a doorman in a "hard data" way. Ideally you'd want to do an A/B test of doorman vs non-doorman, but you'd need multiple hotels for that to work.

This seems like a logical error. I don't understand how an internal combustion engine works, but I know it doesn't come from goblins jumping up and down inside.

This link https://wismuth.com/chess/longest-game.html from the article talks about the 2014 changes (75-move rule and draw by 5-fold repetition) that make it no longer infinite.

Looking at the actual article, the people suggesting taxes on AI are American Nobel laureate Edmund Phelps, and Bill Gates, founder of MSFT. The Europeans suggest more general taxes on capital instead.

See (listen?) also the Radiolab episode https://radiolab.org/podcast/slippery-mystery

The OP thinks that candidates spending a lot of time on applications is OK, as long as the company shows respect by spending a lot of time themselves. I think this is mistaken - I care about how much time I have to spend, and am a lot less concerned about how much time the company takes.

There's a trade-off: if a company spends more time / requires more effort on an interview process, they can get a better signal on the candidate's abilities, but then they'll lose out on candidates who are unwilling / unable to commit this time. This might just be a hard trade-off in recruiting.

This is an interesting use of AI. If we just want to know what Charles III looks like, photography has solved that problem. So a portrait is interesting because it's saying something about him, rather than being a photo-faithful likeness. But what is the robot (or rather, the robot's programmer) trying to say here? Any ideas?

Trivially, the measure of how much it costs in dollars to drive into Manhattan along the affected routes has gone up. So there are likely some people who are worse off. It's rare to have a completely free lunch, but this one looks pretty cheap.

Number of people saying that you should just make sure you have backups. That's true, but there's still a role for government to play to prevent this sort of thing. We don't let companies sell poisonous food - why do we let them offer digital services that can be arbitrarily frozen?

We've heard of Chesterton's fence. This is a rare example of Chesterton's non-fence.

There are a number of industries where you may need experience to become more productive than AI, but nobody wants to hire you when AI is more productive in the first couple of years. Is there a good equilibrium for this, or does it end up with each company saying "We won't hire the juniors, just the experienced people" and then finding there aren't enough experienced people around?