These are already the lowest paid jobs, it's not like you'll be able to lower wages. I question how AI will increase the productivity of the jobs that are largely dependent on manual labour. It's not going to make the food cook faster, it's not going to make the server run and cover more tables, it's not going to make the construction worker put in nails or lay the flooring faster.

So the only benefits would the to be able to hire less skilled workers, but there is more to work than just knowing how to do a job. You need hand-eye coordination, you need physical strength etc. So there are other factors limiting the labour pool and pushing up the wages, not just mental factors.

What is the monetary benefit of a server not forgetting an order? I'd argue that it happens so rarely that the benefit is close to zero. Glass is not going to make your server move faster or be able to cover more tables.

Similar with the cooking, cooking is much more about the feel (how hard is the meat, pasta etc.) rather than visuals. Cook times vary depending on bunch of factors, no two pieces are exactly identical.

These jobs are much more dependent on physical factors rather than mental, I don't think that AI can do much to improve productivity.

I am not sure that AI will have as much impact on jobs as people believe. The simple reason is that the cost of implementing AI in most cases is not worth the benefits. Cooking is listed here as an example, where AR glasses are supposed to help cooks and servers. Well, they seem to be doing fine without AR/AI helping them, so why incur the cost and complexity of implementing something to marginally increase productivity of a low wage worker.

I suspect this will be the case in most occupations, the cost and complexity of AI implementation will only make it viable for high wage jobs, otherwise it's just not worth it.

Good intentions and all, but implementation won't be easy. Everything right now has really long lead times, we are 12-18 month lead times now, vs. 6 months two years ago. BTW, nuclear is not included in this as it's not considered a renewable energy source.

People are taking this too far, current AI (if you can call it that) is fairly rudimentary and incapable of replacing most jobs and I doubt it will be for a long time. ChatGPT is basically a memorization tool, testing described here shows that it does great on problems that are identical or very similar to those that were part of its training set, but it's abysmal on problems outside that. So yeah, it's great when you have to regurgitate a bunch of textbooks, but it's not good using that knowledge to solve even the simplest new problems.

If you want insight into what the society will look like in the future, you can look to the past. Arguably, society 100 years ago, before any computers and automation, was not that different than society today. People still live in houses, they are a bit fancier, but it's still the same house. We cook, we work in offices and factories, we consume entertainment. We just have better tools that are more widely available, the same way that horse buggies were replaced by cars.

So a society 100 years from now will likely look fairly similar as well, the rate of technological change is not that big that we'll see massive changes at a fundamental level. Your car may look different, but it's still likely to be a car (non-flying sort). Your house may have more gadgets. Your work may look different, but no different than somebody moving from a typewriter to a computer with a word processor.

Yes, modern devices use a magnetometer to determine the direction of the North. But with a GPS you know your location relative to the magnetic pole and you can determine your direction of travel using the magnetometer and software to correct the magnetic pole drift. So GPS can tell tell you your direction of travel, albeit indirectly by correcting for your position relative to the drifting magnetic pole.

The only thing that is affected is that the magnetic North and geographic North will not align anymore, so a magnetic compass will not be as useful anymore, as direction of the North will depend on geographic location. There is no effect on the Earth rotation or any other physical effects.

I don't think there will be serious day-to-day effects, most navigational systems use some version of GPS, which aligns through satellites rather than magnetic compass. Weakening of the magnetic field itself may be harmful as it protects the surface of the Earth from charged particles coming from the Sun, such as those created by solar eruptions. These can sometimes disrupt electrical systems on the surface, but their magnitude is rarely sufficient to cause real concern.

The title of the post and the article is misleading. The issue discussed is not that AI needs to understands consequences, it's that AI can't differentiate between correlation and causation. Which it can't because it's not intelligent, it's a correlation-finding algorithm. It's working as intended.

Researchers just discuss the need for new models, because current models are not "smart" enough and will need to be replaced with something new that will be able to differentiate between correlation and causation.

TLDR; Article discussed flaws of current AI models, rather AI needing to understand anything.

Ars Technica is reporting that it doesn't look like the oral arguments went well for the plaintiffs and that the justices seem to view it more of a problem with the legislation itself (a Congress problem), rather than interpretation of the legislation (a Court problem).

20 years ago when I was doing my PhD I became friends with a bunch of climatologists as our offices were next to each other. Their view was that the model is always lagging behind, because we first need to observe the effect to include it into the model.

So whatever the model is telling us, the things will get worse faster than that. If the model is saying that 2 degC increase is safe, that's probably not true and we should aim for 1.5. We already burned through 1 degC increase, so things are not looking good.

Basically, the hull is leaking and Turkey is worried it will sink somewhere en-route before it gets to the scrapyard. So Brazil will sink it in deep water (5000+ feet) away from protected marine areas and any underwater infrastructure.

The hull likely still contains toxic materials, like paint and oil residue, so by sinking it in deep water they hope to limit environmental damage.

I am not a physicist, but after reading the paper this seems like less of a breakthrough than they imply. Basically the process (as I understand it) is that they measure the energy state of qubit A, transmit that information to a different quantum computer containing qubit B, transmit the energy needed to excite qubit B into the same state as qubit A and finally exciting the qubit B into the same state as qubit A.

From the title, I was expecting some sort of an entangled energy transfer rather than what looks like an information transfer. This does not appear to be the case. Maybe someone who is more proficient in quantum physics can confirm if this is right.

This is a prime example of how to coordinate global action to address environmental issues. The world took notice of what was happening and, albeit slowly, took decisive action to ban ozone-destroying chemicals.

Such action can work for other environmental issues, don't believe people who tell you otherwise.