Only if it’s possible to do without leaving his chair. Probably.
$63m isn’t much more than the Mohole project spent in old money 60 years ago, and an order of magnitude less in real terms than what they thought it would cost to actually do it. Seems unlikely it would be enough.
Why do I have this feeling that this is NOT a good idea?
The dealers may like this because their service departments probably get to bill Ford for putting in the chips.
So they are going to sell vehicles at over MSRP that are missing parts? 2022 folks.
Let’s just go back to the chip-less 70’s.
We got along just fine without them then!
;-)
Edit: At least I don’t think my 1979 Trans Am had any chips. At least I never saw one.
Ahh. The 6.6 liter Olds 403. Only 185 HP, but tons of torque…for 1979.
I had already heard some of he local luxury brands in Australia were doing this - ie Mercedes.
Most of these cars will never be retrofitted with the missing components and it will create a minefield in the second-hand market as well.
Gee, thanks news article for telling people how to program their AI to produce even more toxic weapons. Instead of penalizing dangerous toxicity, invert it to reward finding dangerous toxicity!
Thank you for sharing some insight into how to create this stuff!
This isn’t a cat-out-of-the-bag moment. This is a really obvious application of AI and I’m sure already being used by the relevant bioweapon labs.
Probably. Still, if it is known, what is the value of an article about it? Just something to get clicks?
You know, if you click the link it’s to a scientific journal. AFAIK, those don’t exist to “get clicks”. Nature is a pretty prominent journal at that (it’s where I target my publications!)
Consider these two paragraphs:
The Swiss Federal Institute for NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) Protection —Spiez Laboratory— convenes the ‘convergence’ conference series1 set up by the Swiss government to identify developments in chemistry, biology and enabling technologies that may have implications for the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions. Meeting every two years, the conferences bring together an international group of scientific and disarmament experts to explore the current state of the art in the chemical and biological fields and their trajectories, to think through potential security implications and to consider how these implications can most effectively be managed internationally. The meeting convenes for three days of discussion on the possibilities of harm, should the intent be there, from cutting-edge chemical and biological technologies. Our drug discovery company received an invitation to contribute a presentation on how AI technologies for drug discovery could potentially be misused.
[…]
The reality is that this is not science fiction. We are but one very small company in a universe of many hundreds of companies using AI software for drug discovery and de novo design. How many of them have even considered repurposing, or misuse, possibilities? Most will work on small molecules, and many of the companies are very well funded and likely using the global chemistry network to make their AI-designed molecules. How many people have the know-how to find the pockets of chemical space that can be filled with molecules predicted to be orders of magnitude more toxic than VX? We do not currently have answers to these questions. There has not previously been significant discussion in the scientific community about this dual-use concern around the application of AI for de novo molecule design, at least not publicly. Discussion of societal impacts of AI has principally focused on aspects such as safety, privacy, discrimination and potential criminal misuse10, but not on national and international security. When we think of drug discovery, we normally do not consider technology misuse potential. We are not trained to consider it, and it is not even required for machine learning research, but we can now share our experience with other companies and individuals. AI generative machine learning tools are equally applicable to larger molecules (peptides, macrolactones, etc.) and to other industries, such as consumer products and agrochemicals, that also have interests in designing and making new molecules with specific physicochemical and biological properties. This greatly increases the breadth of the potential audience that should be paying attention to these concerns.
(Haven’t looked for the actual source yet since I’m in Zoom hell atm)
Dwayne Johnson gonna beat those scrawny science types!
Science really doesn’t need to worry itself, since mummies are, hands down, the dumbest and least dangerous monsters of all. They’re even dumber than werewolfs, and that’s saying something!
-Tom
I thought you loved Strange Brigade!?
Mummies are the OG zombies, kinda surprised to see them getting figuratively burned so bad when they literally burn so well.
RichVR
1834
Sort of like a riches to rags thing, eh?
This “mummies just are just dumb zombies that shamble around” talk betrays a lack of familiarity with the source material, instead relying on cartoon parodies. A mummy returning from the dead means Boris Karloff (or Lon Chaney I guess) with mind control powers, and is not a threat to be taken lightly.
