1 I am stunned, stunned to learn that Apple has shipped a laptop with inadequate power and cooling. Again.

Given the boat-anchor size of the 16-inch MacBook Pro (I have an older one for work), it sounds like the best place for the M5 Max is in a Mini or a Studio, which might have enough power and cooling to fully utilize it.

-j

2 I think the claims around the AI space create some liability for the companies.

If I have no choice but to AI or be unemployable, and if I might already be unemployable, if I have non-zero mental health risks it is better for me to manage them by having zero use. The more ambiguous case is if I am potentially vulnerable, but also can function as an employee if I manage my mental health risks. 

Telling people that they should go to university is also something that can be very bad for them. For example. And some of the people who got the most As for repeating teacher are some of the most vulnerable.

Existing metrics may serve me well enough on AI, (not that I was doing my filtering on the clearest, most objective, most long established, most theoretically justified rules of thumb).  Yudkowsky was clearly not showing fruits of the spirit where Christ is concerned, so anything that Yudkowsky gets magical or spiritual hits off of is potentially dangerous.  This basically describes ninety percent of experts excited in public over 'intelligence on a computer'.  All the real evidence had more narrow interpretations possible, so the people leaping directly to the sexy interpretations were often getting hits off of their own magical thinking. 

Sane followers of Christ do not go 'whelp, this theoretical idea is really important, and the rituals we must do for the idea naturally lead to a lot of mass murder.'  This rule of thumb can be applied to a lot of academic theorists.  (Which leads to a conversation about it not being scholastically admissible, and the conversations we are not having about whether academia can really represent anyone outside academia.)

Note, I absolutely was not using this approach at all until very recently.  I've long been very aligned to some technocratic 'spiritual errors', those are pretty close to my starting points.

I'm unwise and immature enough to actually /need/ an explanation of why we don't just fix academia by shooting all of the obvious communists.  On the one hand, it better equips me to meet communist academics where they are coming from, and to try to reach those alien lunatics.  If I were wise and mature enough to have something healthy to say to them. 

Anyway, if American style safety warnings on tools and dogs law is correct, then failing to fully disclose 'this is bad for crazy people' and 'we are obviously promoting discrimination in employment for crazy people' then the AI and the tech bros are fucked on liability law.

But this is downstream of 'everything should be curated for accuracy' statism which is objectively incorrect. 

Also, then we could sue universities for making the communists ill, so they have liability for the current bunch of communist ill murderers, so it looks like collusion by lawyers to shield their alma maters from liability. 

The correct law should be that free speech is always better.

There is a wide liability for telling crazy people that they should use AI, or for telling crazy people that they will be unemployed.  But, really, we should instead be more permissive when it comes to publically telling academics that they don't know anything, and can frustrate themselves and the horse they rode in on. 

So, yes, also the lawyers are trying to profit from law that is pretty bad.