blacksqr

The word "robot" was invented to label a being whose worth was defined only in terms of the labor it performed. The point being that to value someone that way is to deny them any chance for humanity. An android is designed to take a place among humans and has the option to aspire to belong among them.

Data isn't a robot, he's an android.

"You never blow the cover of an agent in the field." --Jackson Lamb

> Until 1975, half of Americans said they entertained guests at their home every month.

Television.

Obviously the most proximate human being in the decision-making chain that led to the AI agent being deployed. The nearest person with the power to say no who said yes.

Long-term-stable color photo processing didn't become widely available until the late 1970s-early 1980s.

So if you were an artist and interested in building and maintaining a permanent portfolio, B&W was pretty much your only option.

Yes, but to sue for infringement, you must register the work with the Copyright Office, and the registration must specify clearly what's AI and what's human-created, and only the latter is protected.

It's already been established by court ruling and enshrined in Copyright Office regulations, that you can claim copyright on a mixed AI and human-authored work, but to sue for damages you must register the work, and the registration must clearly specify which parts are AI generated and which are human generated. Copyright can only be claimed on the declared human generated portion of the work.

I have found myself wondering a lot lately about the alternative universe where all the effort and resources devoted to developing and using AI coding and debugging agents were instead simply dedicated to fuzzing human-generated code. How would the code quality and total usefulness of the results have compared?

I for one welcome our new AI overlords.

> makes the easy part easier and the hard part harder

That is to say, just like every headline-grabbing programming "innovation" of the last thirty years.

What's the performance hit?

The best carbon capture device is the ocean, and for the last 10 years or so huge amounts of free-floating sargassum seaweed have grown in warm ocean waters around the world. Nobody is certain why the sargassum has appeared in such volume lately, but it's plausible to speculate that increased CO2 in ocean water plays a role. As far as I can see the only remotely efficient way to sequester carbon at scale is to leverage the ocean by gathering the seaweed and dumping it on marginal or desert land, both to trap the carbon and fertilize the soil, thus promoting additional carbon-binding plant growth.

Whenever I hear the word "culture," I reach for my remote.