OK, but "what we need" is not the question. If the definition of AGI is "as smart as the average human in all areas", then it doesn't matter if the average human is pretty useless at a lot of tasks, that's still the definition of AGI.

But I'd like to think that, even though you could find exceptions, the average human is never confused about whether dogs can lay eggs or not.

I reached your view the day my grandma told me I was wrong and a hummingbird was a type of insect...

Like, it's in the name.

But javascript is not java. can we blame your grandma?

This has always bugged me. $7 million for a 30-second-long ad. What do they get out of it? Well, presumably, a change in peoples' concrete behaviors that is more than $7 million. They expect that (otherwise they wouldn't buy the ad in the first place).

At the same time, we're told that all the sex and violence on TV doesn't matter, because it doesn't change peoples' behavior.

So, which is it? Does what we watch on TV change our behavior, in concrete ways, or doesn't it? I suspect that it does change our behavior, that the advertisers are right. (They're betting a lot of money on their position; I'd expect them to have some basis for doing so before committing that kind of coin.) But if so, then the rest of what we watch also changes our behavior.

And, obviously, so does our social media feed...

There's a lot of people unhappy about this here. Presuming that the sentiment extends beyond HN, then it might be a problem that you could make some money by solving. (In the same way that Google figured out how to let the net tell it which pages were best, and made an insane amount of money from doing so.)

People want something real, not AI slop or shills or astroturf or corpo-speak or any of a thousand other flavors of fake. People want it rather desperately. In fact, the current situation is bad for peoples' mental health. Can someone figure out how to give people a much higher percentage of real?

You can - but you have to work with a good product manager and a good architect. You have to actually listen to them and trust them.

If they're taking patient data for research without permission, they are not ethical researchers.

Is it really “without permission” if it’s from a server for which the access credentials have been deliberately published to the entire internet?

From the perspective of research ethics: it is very much without permission in that situation

If it's without the patient's permission, then yes, it is without the only permission that matters for medical ethics.

That's not a polite no. That's more a passive-aggressive no. ("Passive aggressive" may not be quite right, but it's something in the neighborhood, and I'm not coming up with better words.) It's "no, but we don't have the honesty to just tell you no".

Meh. Just walk out of that interview. Seriously. Ditch that place immediately.

Smart places know that the people they want to hire are the kind of people who already have jobs. A place that doesn't know that is going to hire the kind of people who are currently unemployed. They get people who have fewer options. And they tend to treat them less well, because they have fewer options.

It is highly illegal - unconstitutional - for them to go after HN, even if it becomes a popular hotbed of political activism.

/me waves hands around wildly

This admin is constantly doing illegal things and when challenged in court has over a 70% loss rate.

I believe that, even within that two hour window, you cannot delete if anyone has replied to it.

You can still edit it to say "[deleted]" or something, though.

Is it prohibiting knives? Or weapons grade plutonium?

Neither. It's information. If you find information dangerous, you might just be an authoritarian