10% tax on everything he owns would be like 50% of his personal wealth.
That doesn’t make any sense? 10% tax on all he owns is 10% of his personal wealth.
Obviously all he owns = His personal wealth.
But yeah, we can definitely do better than 0%
Definitely, 1% should be a no-brainer, 2% would be better. 😀
Funny why you thought of the money first?
The US isn’t really a market for their oil or gas,
That is not at all what the petro dollar is about. It’s about USA ensuring the safety of the GCC countries, and in return the GCC countries are selling oil for USD, this increases international demand for USD to buy oil. GCC countries are then investing most of those dollars back into American companies. If that cycle is broken, demand for USD will decrease dramatically, and a lot of investments would disappear from USA too. Whoever buys the oil is irrelevant, as long as it is paid in USD, the petro dollar is maintained.
All countries think mainly about themselves, but if there were a World Cup for solipsism, the British would effortlessly carry off the trophy.
I’m guessing they mean among all European countries, because outside Europe USA would beat every European country by several lengths.
I don’t think UK rejoining EU is politically possible within another decade, and that goes for both sides.
What I do think is that cooperation between EU and UK will increase gradually, meaning that UK will have to adapt to EU without having the influence they would have had if they had remained a member of EU.
I’m not sure if they even agreed to it, it would be typical for Trump to try to rub losses he has caused off on someone else.
One thing is sure, USA has lost a lot of credibility among all the GCC countries, it shall be interesting to see how much it hurts the petro dollar, because if that goes, so will an enormous amount of petro dollar investments back into USA.
We live in interesting times.
They probably mean the GCC countries: UAE, Saudi, Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain.
Exactly the same as when Microsoft ditched Outlook express.
you have to have some awareness of what AI even is or you are at risk of being harmed.
Yes that’s how it is, but that should not be the case, AI should legally be considered like asking expert advice, like asking a lawyer or a doctor, those are not considered risks, because they have legal responsibility for their advice. The same must be the case for AI, AI must have similar legal responsibility covered by the company offering the AI service.
If AI responses can’t be trusted and are false information, it’s not a service but a disservice. It can never be the case that normal users should have particular skills to use an AI service. That’s legally a slippery slope we should absolutely refuse to allow.
I never read any “fake” Asimov stories not actually being written by Asimov himself.
I have however read everything Asimov wrote, I think he was an amazing author, and I love how well thought out his stories are.
Is there any particular reason to read these Roger MacBride Allen stories?
I must admit my interest in reading has diminished, because I find mostly everything I read has become banal and without any new thoughts.
Thanks for the good constructive response. 👍
a company that provides unreviewed AI output must ensure users are aware that output can be harmful or incorrect.
I agree, and then we should require such warnings for every AI response, kind of like we have on cigarettes.
Meaning the responsibility to warn about harmful effects is up to the company offering the service, not for the user to assume.
I think responsibility comes once you present AI output to something who doesn’t consent or understand AI.
Which means 99.9% of the users currently using AI, or unknowingly exposed to it through services that use AI without it being clear.
I wonder if Elon Musk is laughing his ass off about BYD making robots, like he did about their EV cars?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9ftbRWqkj0
In China BYD is now selling 5 times more EV cars than Tesla!!
https://autovista24.autovistagroup.com/news/what-was-the-best-selling-ev-brand-in-china-in-2025/
Now Musk claims his stupid AI and Robots that aren’t even competitive today, will be worth billions or rather trillions in the future.
My guess is the competition will walk all over him in every field, because Tesla is lagging behind now even on EV where they had a solid head start. Elon Musk does not have a head start on robotics and AI, and I doubt Neither SpaceX (XAI) or Shitter (Grok) or Tesla (Optimus) will ever make a profit on any of their AI products.
Maybe BYD won’t either, but I give them a way better chance than anything Musk related.
The basic idea that there are abiously laws for humans too is fine.
But these are misunderstood, and are designed to put blame on users instead of the AI and the companies behind.
It is well known that Asimov’s laws were flawed.
What? No they aren’t!! Those laws are 70 years old, and are surprisingly well designed, and the concept still stands, which is why they are still so famous! The claim that they are flawed is a very bad start, and very noticeably the author does not describe in what way they are flawed, and also no, Asimov’s stories do NOT reveal flaws in these laws, on the contrary they demonstrate the necessity of them. Asimov’s stories demonstrate that responsibility of AI is a requirement, otherwise innocent people or even humanity will get hurt.
The inverse laws the article suggest:
Humans must not anthropomorphise AI systems.
This is mostly irrelevant. Judgement must be based on the facts, just like with any other type of professional advice.
I feel like 2+2 should be five, is essentially nonsensical, but still it is impossible to not have human users reflect on their own emotions when being advised, whether it’s a human, a book or an AI.
Humans must not blindly trust the output of AI systems.
This should seem obvious. But it completely removes the responsibility from the AI, and fails to account for the human factor that if the AI was right 9 times in a row, it is very human to think it is probably also right the 10th time, exactly as with a human advisor. You can’t make it a requirement of humans to automatically be skeptical of advice put forward with sophisticated language and argumentation that seems identical to a qualified authority and expert. And then require that we make the research manually afterwards. What would the point of the AI be then? We might as well simply skip the AI step altogether by that logic. Which might actually not be such a bad idea. 😋
Humans must remain fully responsible and accountable for consequences arising from the use of AI systems.
This sounds like blame is fully on the user, not the company responsible for the AI.
When services are offered to non specialists and ordinary people, the company behind the “product” must have responsibility of the quality of the product for the services they offer, exactly like with other products. Guidance to a teenager to commit suicide cannot be blamed on the user, and guidance to commit acts of terror makes the AI an accomplice, and the company behind such an AI must be exactly as responsible for the act as if a human had been an accomplice.
This looks like a whitewash of AI responsibility, and this is exactly the last thing we would want to become a legal norm, a world of irresponsible AI where the users carry all the blame.
Guidelines maybe, laws no.
Edit:
I’m surprised this is downvoted, since when did Lemmy become pro irresponsible AI? Laying the burden of responsibility on ordinary users instead of the companies behind!
Absolutely “don’t be stupid” is what we should all strive for, but you simply can’t make it a “law” that people must stop being stupid. An AI giving advice that obviously harm people should absolutely be illegal, exactly as Asimov suggested in his 3 laws of Robotics.
Expected errors are the worst, they don’t even pop up an error message, but just keep fucking things up in the background.
There really shouldn’t be 30 km/h motorized vehicles on bicycle lanes.
I agree, especially not with how crowded bike lanes often are in for instance Copenhagen.
OK that’s much like here in Denmark, except the small ones are allowed to go 30.
Yes, this is an absolute shitshow, and USA is probably the biggest loser in all of this. Not Trump, he is raking in money on insider trading and corruption, but USA and average Americans are losing a lot of money on higher oil prices.
We all want to go fast, so do cars, but there are limits for safety, and for children and elderly those fast bikes are a hazard. My own 89 year old father was hospitalized for a week, because a fast biker hit his arm so he fell, maybe even without noticing, because he just continued as if nothing had happened.
Where I live city bikelanes are typically narrow, because the roads weren’t designed for them originally. Narrow lanes and high speed is clearly a problem for vulnerable users of bike lanes, and can be an outright terror.
So just don’t be inconsiderate of other users of the bikelane, because it can have dire consequences for others than yourself.
That said I know slow bicycles can be extremely annoying too when they don’t make room for one to pass safely.
The bike lane in the article looks fairly wide, though.
Not all bikelanes are like that.
What you are depicting is called Eurasia. Which is the single landmass that make up Europe and Asia.
But you are right that Europe and Asia are considered separate for cultural reasons, and are not really geographic continents but subcontinents of Eurasia.
It is no more correct to cal Europe west Asia than it would be to call Asia east Europe.