Well thing is polls are always little bad at predicting in this kind of situation. Since for example, if Harris was the candidate, the campaign machine would change messaging behind her. This might affect things and so on.

So any one who isn't the main candidate has to be taken with "what would be this persons chances on election day taking in account between now and then campaign machine will be pushing them"

Many many other candidates have benefit of "don't look like they are at deaths door and statistically aren't beyond the expected life expectancy of USA population for person born so long ago."

Since realistically for example as morbid as it is ( and democrats and Biden forced themselves for me to making this comparison by insisting on the old man), one isn't voting for President Biden for 4 years. Nah it's like maybe 1-2 of President Biden and then rest of the term President Harris. Since that man is so old and looking bad health, he gets elected he is going to die in office. He will die in year or two also out of office, but well he really should take his retirement and enjoy the year or two of life he has left.

So the "Harris wouldn't be better choice", well she will be the choice in year or two. Don't think voters don't take that into account. People aren't dumb and can read life expectancy chart and use their eyes.

Well difference is you have to know coming to know did the AI produce what you actually wanted.

Anyone can read the letter and know did the AI hallucinate or actually produce what you wanted.

On code. It might produce code, that by first try does what you ask. However turns AI hallucinated a bug into the code for some edge or specialty case.

Hallucinating is not a minor hiccup or minor bug, it is fundamental feature of LLMs. Since it isn't actually smart. It is a stochastic requrgitator. It doesn't know what you asked or understand what it is actually doing. It is matching prompt patterns to output. With enough training patterns to match one statistically usually ends up about there. However this is not quaranteed. Thus the main weakness of the system. More good training data makes it more likely it more often produces good results. However for example for business critical stuff, you aren't interested did it get it about right the 99 other times. It 100% has to get it right, this one time. Since this code goes to a production business deployment.

I guess one can code comprehensive enough verified testing pattern including all the edge cases and with thay verify the result. However now you have just shifted the job. Instead of programmer programming the programming, you have programmer programming the very very comprehensive testing routines. Which can't be LLM done, since the whole point is the testing routines are there to check for the inherent unreliability of the LLM output.

It's a nice toy for someone wanting to make a quick and dirty test code (maybe) to do thing X. Then try to find out does this actually do what I asked or does it have unforeseen behavior. Since I don't know what the behavior of the code is designed to be. Since I didn't write the code. good for toying around and maybe for quick and dirty brainstorming. Not good enough for anything critical, that has to be guaranteed to work with promise of service contract and so on.

So what the future real big job will be is not prompt engineers, but quality assurance and testing engineers who have to be around to guard against hallucinating LLM/ similar AIs. Prompts can be gotten from anyone, what is harder is finding out did the prompt actually produced what it was supposed to produce.

Nor does it remove it from being a war crime. Just being indifferent to whether one hits civilians or not is a war crime. The bar is one has to concern oneself actively with considering how to minimise civilian casualties.

There possibly is a pushers/braking truck attached to the rear of the Transporter.

Also one must remember on transporter it is about winning over rolling resistance rather than the weight. Doesn't necessarily take that powerfull truck on flat ground to pull even great load.

Also turbine housing has lot of air and as equipment to be lifted to top of a mast, built with light weight in mind. Not for pulling it, but in thought of the crane that has to lift that thing dead load up.

Whatever it is called with that kind of caffeine content you warning label it with listing of exactly how much caffeine it has. Well maybe unless it is named literally "coffee" and is plain brewed coffee and at that brewed coffee with the normal levels of caffeine coffee contains.

Ones frappe, whippazino also better have needed labels in cases, since given all they mix how the heck one is to know what exactly is the contents. Oh this is extra special "angry frappe" with double squared shot expresso, so exactly how much caffeine is that dear seller per one glass? I just thought you put chili in it or something to make it "angry", but has literally multiple times more caffeine content.

This is why all the energy drinks atleast where I live have the ever present "contains high amount of caffeine x mg/100ml".

You sell something like that as counter served item with no packaging label to read, well now your menu list must contains at minimum highlights. Something like "our special drunk (HC)" and then somewhere on the menu there reads "HC means high in caffeine". Then obviously at the counter must be a full labeling booklet of "here is our every product from the plainest brewed coffee to our jumbo mega sandwich and special brew beverage with full nutritional information and ingredients"

Just like one can't sell say a pastry in cafe with nut creme filling with out having a big marker on all the menus "contains nuts, nut allergies bevare". Since similarly nut allergic consuming nuts can be life threatening, well for some people consuming caffeine isn't healthy and must be disclosed.

Specially in say foggy conditions and little bit distance. At which point you won't clearly maybe differentiate individual elements and more like that's the rear and "block of light in middle, left and right". At which point it all little blending one might infact be under impression "the light intensity lowered at the rear, huh, not braking then, did they have they parking break dragging they released or something.... ohhhjj shuiiiiiit no it is braking hard".

My two cents from here north of Europe and land of snow, rain, fog and occasional white out conditions.

Well depending on how they count was there a flip or are the ratios different since certain amount of people have moved to the "not likely voter" category. So instead of flip, there is apathy among democratic voters.

Since they say among black voters, not among black population. Those are two different things and it matters which is it. All voting eligible persons, regardless of likelihood to vote, or just likely voters.

Since voter/not voter is not a fixed grouping, there is constant movement over that line.

People always seem to forgot even two party system is not a two bucket zero sum game. There is always that third pseudo party around, the sleeping peoples party. Losing voters to sleeping peoples party is exactly as good way to lose the election as is losing voters directly to the main rival party.

One can also win an election, not by stealing voters from the rival, but from the sleeping peoples party.

Also I would add, not like this is unanimously supported in EU among memberstates. So this isn't a done deal, this is a legislative proposal. Ofcourse everyone should activate and campaign on this, but its not like this is "Privacy activists vs all of EU and all the member state governments" situation. Some official government positions on this one are "this should not pass like it is, breaking the encryption is bad idea".

Wouldn't be first time EU commission proposal falls. Plus as you said ECJ would most likely rule it as being against the Charter of Rights of European Union as too wide breach of right to privacy.

Well mostly the flaw is people assigning the test abilities it was never intended. Like testing intelligence. Turing outright as first thing in the paper presenting "imitation game" noted moving away from testing intelligence, since he didn't know to do that. Even on the realm of "testing intelligent kind of behavior" well more like human like behavior and human being here proxy for intelligent, it was mostly an academic research idea. Not a concrete test meant to be some milestone.

If the meaning of the words ‘machine’ and ‘think’ are to be found by examining how they are commonly useit is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, ‘Can machines think?’ is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.

Turing wanted a way to step away from stuff like "thinking" and "intelligence" directly and then proposed "imitation game" mostly to the rest of the academia as way to develop computer systemics more towards "intelligent behavior". It was mostly like "hey we need some goal to have as a goal to have something to move towards with these intelligence things. This isn't intelligence, but it might be usefull goal or tool for development work". Since without some goal/project/aim to have project don't advance. So it was "how about we try to develop a thing, that can beat this imitation game. Wouldn't that be good stepping stone. Then we can move to the actual serious stuff. Just an idea".

However since this academic "thinking out aloud spitballing ideas" was uttered by the Alan Turing, it became the Turing Test and everyone started taking it way too seriously. Specially outside academia. Who yes did play the imitation game with their programs as it was intended as research and development tool.

exemplified by for example this little exerpt of "not trying to do anything too complete and ground breaking here":

In any case there is no intention to investigate here the theory of the game, and it will be assumed that the best strategy is to try to provide answers that would naturally be given by a man

It is pretty literally "I had a thought". Turin makes no claims of machine beating the game having any significance other than "machine beat this game I came up with, neat". There is no argument of if machine beats imitation game, then X or then it means Y is reached.

Rest of the paper is actually about objections to the core idea of "it could ever be possible for machine to think" and even as such said imitation game is kinda lead in or introduction to Turing's treatise various objections of various "it would be impossible for machine to think" arguments. Starting with theological argument of "only human soul can think. Hence no animal or machine can think." .... since it was 1950's.

Oh no, poor Apple having to do a redesign. How can they ever afford that with their billions.

It can be, depending on whether PII was involved. Just being publicly published doesn't make it not be PII. It can be or not be. GDPR counts PII widely, since it also includes stuff that can be combined with other information to make for identifying the person.

Frankly this is one of those cases, where we need a court ruling to set precedent on what is counted in and what is counted out.