Yeah but the point of the saying “separate the art of the artist” is that it’s difficult to reconcile a piece of media you would otherwise like with the fact the artist is a POS.
Basically everyone agrees Mein Kampf sucks, even Nazis only like it performatively. So there’s no reconciliation necessary if you don’t like the media anyway. OP’s comic feels like a miss, the obvious strawman doesn’t even says he likes it just that it’s alright so it barely even fits the saying anyway.
Again that’s a use case with entirely speculative applications at best. It can “process info”, but the answers it gives from them could be hallucinated. So if it’s analyzing nuclear threats, what if it “hallucinates” one? This isn’t Comcast ticket support, the military can’t afford LLMs making up bad info.
Boston dynamics isn’t building countless data centers and (poorly) replacing peoples’ jobs. OP’s comic is obviously about ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini etc.
Except 90% of what people talk about when they refer to AI is LLMs which have no direct military applications other than vague productivity boost claims. You could say the same thing about sending kids to the mines, “our society is more productive sending kids to dig out coal instead of playing. If we don’t send our kids to the mines China will and then we’ll really be behind”.
Meanwhile ChatGPT setting a timer:
From the article:
Vaughan was surprised to find it was often the technical staff, not marketing or sales, who dug in their heels. They were the “most resistant,” he said, voicing various concerns about what the AI couldn’t do, rather than focusing on what it could. The marketing and salespeople were enthused by the possibilities of working with these new tools, he added.
Not surprising the people with technical skills that aren’t actually replaceable by LLMs would be against forced AI adoption. Good luck maintaining a code base created with vibe coding. Meanwhile the CEO probably looks at ChatGPT and realizes it could basically do everything he already does (write emails and make high level decisions without actually having to worry about their implementation) and then incorrectly thinks it’s the case for everyone else.
For me the main benefit of eSIMs is they allow multiple numbers on a single phone which is super handy.
Reading the article though, and I think the described problem is entirely the fault of the carrier and not the design of eSIMs. The carrier should have allowed alternative verification methods (email, online account, in-person at store) other than just sending a text to the disabled number.
The one example you found came over a decade ago from a retriever mix in a household where a different unspecified dog later attacked another child. So on one side you have a single tenuous example from over ten years ago in a huge red flag environment, and on the other you have multiple pit bull fatalities this month.
lol, lmao even
Edit: it’s also worth noting that your cited example involved an infant child, who are the most vulnerable humans by far and could be at threat by basically any living entity. Whereas every pit bull example I listed above, again just from this month, involved fully grown adults.
It literally doesn’t, please cite a single golden retriever kills baby article
Is that good though? In Japan they build houses with the expectation that they’re only going to last one generation and then will be rebuilt, and the result is that housing is actually affordable because there isn’t nearly as much speculative investing in housing driving up house prices.