DoctorOetker

Obviously train safety systems should be formally verified and eliminate human error (only permit safe leeway to humans).

But apart from the safety mechanisms, there is also the concept of securing passengers.

What we know so far is that originally, cars weren't equipped with safety belts, until they were.

Imagine a thought experiment: the trains are equipped with safety belts, on a voluntary basis. Initially everyone scoffs at them, except for a minority. Time passes until an accident happens. Then everybody learns that the forward facing passengers that were facing forward had the lowest casualty reports, next are the people facing backwards, since a decelerating train mostly just pushes them harder into their own seats, and their safety depends on the discipline of any occupant who happens to sit on the forward facing seat. People start preferring the safest seats forward facing with belts (you only depend on your own discipline). People sitting in a forwards facing seat who refuse to put on the belt will be asked to find a different seat or put on the belt. In many places it will turn out a lot of passengers are standing upright "by necessity" even though no law of nature or authority mandates or permits railroad operators to sell more tickets than they have safe seats. But first that would require figuring out what new lucrative job prospects can be opened for insurance companies, and any population around the world may think out loud why insurance on offenses appear to be legal and often even encouraged by court systems!

It turns out its never really possible to draw an objective line between accidental and intentional offenses, so at a fundamental level we should either permit insurance that covers you when caught committing murder, grand larceny or what have you (done); OR we should ban all insurance from covering offenses (accidental and intentional). Insurance "allows the system to stably continue without shocks reverberating through the economy in the face of adverse events" is a poor justification for permitting the insurance of offenses, especially since it typically results in the wrong questions being asked, and instead of figuring out who paid the least to insurance scams, perhaps some real questions could delve up real solutions that save lives instead of defend the income streams of lawyers profiting on the misery of civilians.

different countries have different platforms or mechanisms where interpretations of law are discussed, in Belgium for example there are "rondzendbrieven" by which say judges discuss how to collectively misinterpret the law.

from a US perspective, isn't this diametrically opposed to the concept of "void for vagueness"? : the moment the interpretation of ostensibly non-vague law is under discussion by professionals is the moment said law is invalidated.

Suppose a clear moniker could be chosen rationally what would it be? (auto)regressive intelligence?

I fully agree, and think the international community is making a big mistake by not (re)formalizing international law and the rules of war, we should force all nations (including those not in conflict -yet-) to store school locations etc. as machine readable maps... we will never be able to roll back the clock and find out if Iran would have properly declared the presence of the school or not, ... but we can PREVENT SIMILAR SITUATIONS in the future, or at the very least have a mechanism which makes it crystal clear when one or more parties are playing very dirty games.

Wouldn't it be much nicer to live in a first world with more clarity, where it is immediately obvious which nation either knowingly bombed a kids school, or what other nation knowingly uses some poor children as human shieds...

But thats not the world we live in: apparently we live in the world where the event also happened, but where the rules weren't set up to provide such clarity a priori. And this second world is IMHO darker than the also dark first world.

I think nobody was justifying what happened, just pointing out more than one party did unjustifiable things.

whats up with all the comments making analogies with AI torture repository?

One might measure the "amount of computation going on" as a proxy for consciousness, but "number of dissipative logic gates" can't be right since one can construct larger reversible circuits containing the same computation (and hence dissipation is a poor measure), although one could then use the total number of bits (including trash bits) as the measure.

but I don't understand why particle physics?

having all other comments (at the time of writing) be about consciousness of individual particles, seems to indicate these commenters specifically believe particle physics or antimatter to directly describe consciousness?

Or is this some kind of "disinfo inoculation campaign" to render us immune to "sentient rights propaganda"?

a high quality set of FOSS, community inspected "freemium clones" may do more for national security and individual privacy compared to yet another crypto library with zero novel mathematics just another reimplementation of specs...

I don't think eugenekay's reply is helpful, unless in the pedantic sense:

yes every microwave oven eventually fails.

yes it is good practice to dedicate a microwave for food and a microwave for science experiments.

As long as there is a good resistive microwave absorber in or on the inside of the kiln, and as long as the kiln insulating properties suffice, why would the magnetron burn out?

Is it 50 deaths or $1B cumulative (then it will unconditionally happen, just a question of when)?

Or is it 50 deaths or $1B in a "single event" (let's ignore the obvious problems with defining a "single event" would be; to kill 8.3B people in 49-death events would take ~170M events, since no timing or rate information is used those could be spaced arbitrarily close to each other).

No matter which way I look at it, the proposal seems nonsensical, max 50 deaths per second? per day? per month? per year? per decade? total?

If AI can intentionally provoke sustained deflation or succeed in dollars to appreciate in value, the value of $1B can appreciate systematically while continuously ramping up damages as long as it remains below an ever increasing value bar of the $1B. "justice can be bought"? a proposal to set the price for LLMs to absolve their sins? "just crank up the value of the dollar system and we will look the other way"?

More explicitly, the AI could misbehave up to $500M (without having to pay), but somehow double $ value, then misbehave the same level of misdeed with same damages being worth $250M of the double-value dollars, double the value of dollars again, then misbehave the same material damages worth $125M, double $ value again, etc. without ever violating the $1B limit, not even cumulatively (due to Zeno's paradox)

I think it would gain toughness, but lose hardness by annealing.

Is there a reason they don't just anneal the slabs to remove the internal stresses?

The only solution is reputation and selling to the public domain, instead of to individuals:

if people like your stuff, you'll have a reputation because of what you made in the past, then you can offer to release your next project to the public domain if some crowdfunding goal is met.