JayDee

Autonomous drones made by China have been used in Papua New Guinea to bomb at least one village so I think the US is actually behind the curve in terms of the AI arms race.

This is one of those classical sci-fi apocalypse ideas, where humans make autonomous war machines they can't turn off, and the machines outlive the humans and continue the war for them.

It should be noted that individuals at the forefront of AI research have a direct bias against saying AI is dangerous. It's their job, and saying anything which presents this research as dangerous could halt funding, and put them out of a job. It's also their passion, though, so it's an even bigger deal for them.

We have also seen individuals who have exited AI research calling for more regulation and ethics requirements. At the same time we are seeing AI ethics departments dismantled. These should stand out as red flags.

Autonomous drones are actively being used to bomb villages in Papua New Guinea. The idea that this kind of tech is "only going to be used for threats of violence and propaganda" is already outdated. It's being used today, and the US just plans to also adopt the tech itself.

Tumblr's gone plaid.

So is this some rich CEO boasting or is Exxon just trying to make people paralyzed from dread?

Looks like it failed where the supports met the parts. Any clue what needs adjustment?

Here's the bill for those adventurous enough to pick out the important bits

It may not be salable to a renter but it's probably going to still be salable to people who actually need a place to live.

Also, yes, plenty of landlords would be screwed into a situation where they'll lose money either way and will just lose more money from holding onto the property than from selling.

Forget selling - why would anyone even take it for free if it was just a permanent money sink

Because it's a place to live in without having rent being arbitrarily dictated by some random dude. It's instead a tax you pay based on who you vote for.

That's what I think too. A law where you pay more tax for additional properties you own on top of your first home. I don't know enough about the housing market to know if such a law would actually help, but at first glance it does seem like it'd break up some of the corporate slum lord businesses around the US

If you read the article, they state exactly what you just said. NYC has many unoccupied apartments which are not being filled because the renters concluded that the rent would not pay for cost of upkeep. They're not selling the properties either, though.

This is occurring in the midst of homelessness being on the rise. A law like this would be to either force the renter to put the property on the market, or fill the vacancy.

It is possible to distinguish between home occupiers and renters, and were a law made like this some method of distinction would be needed.

The entire purpose of a law like this would be to force renters to keep their lots occupied or sell them if they cannot afford to do so. Either way, you either see a drop in rent costs from a market increase, or you see a drop in real estate costs as the market increases. And either way you do not have tens of thousands of vacant homes while homelessness is on the rise.

As a tangent, having a specific idea to talk about, or a theme for starting hang out convos doesn't sound too bad as an idea