Nobody:

Absolutely nobody:

The ghost of Sam Hughes: Okay but have you considered

[The AI]’s going to fall in love with you

Fortunately for everyone, they went out of business before a mandatory reporter had to make the weirdest call ever to CPS.

Ah, right, I guess that's why other vending machines never caught on. Why spend $2 on a Snickers at work when a quick trip to the grocery store can get you candy for way less?

What you're overlooking this time is vending machines sell convenience, not just single-serving portions. The fact that very few customers really need ammo without leaving the store/mall is indeed why this is a questionable business model and not just a sketchy one.

I'm puzzled, though, by the belief that hunters are more likely to make overpriced, impulse purchases of ammo than mass shooters. I'm even less inclined to buy that than ammo from a vending machine.

You're forgetting mass shooters, i.e., the people who don't care if they're identified or if they're getting a good price. Safe to say they're not worried about their credit rating if the plan is to take on a SWAT team in 20 minutes.

Is it actually good against tanks now? I always liked it, but it still hurt to finally get a shot off just for the tank to shrug off the hit.

American Rounds

What, was the Circus of Values brand too expensive to license?

Oh, hey, I've run into this in the wild--the Kalendar AI people keep ineptly trying to start a conversation to sell some kind of kiosk software by referencing factoids they scraped from our latest press release. They've clearly spent more effort on evading spam filters and rotating domains than they have on anything else, but they helpfully use "human" names ending in "Kai," so creating a wildcard filter wasn't too hard.

Credit where it's due: I'd never heard of Kalendar or the software company who hired them, but this experience has told me everything I need to know about both of them. If you don't sweat the details and rate sentiment change using absolute value, that's kind of impressive.

Addressing the “in hell” response that made headlines at Sundance, Rohrer said the statement came after 85 back-and-forth exchanges in which Angel and the AI discussed long hours working in the “treatment center,” working with “mostly addicts.”

We know 85 is the upper bound, but I wonder what Rohrer would consider the minimum number of "exchanges" acceptable for telling someone their loved one is in hell? Like, is 20 in "Hey, not cool" territory, but it's all good once you get to 50? 40?

Rohrer says that when Angel asked if Cameroun was working or haunting the treatment center in heaven, the AI responded, “Nope, in hell.”

“They had already fully established that he wasn't in heaven,” Rohrer said.

Always a good sign when your best defense of the horrible thing your chatbot says is that it's in context.

I'm just going to pretend that's one of the researchers from Where Oaken Hearts Do Gather.

I conclude that scheming is a disturbingly plausible outcome of using baseline machine learning methods to train goal-directed AIs sophisticated enough to scheme (my subjective probability on such an outcome, given these conditions, is ~25%).

Out: vibes and guesswork

In: "subjective probability"

I felt the exact same way about the conversation you mentioned. I really liked the idea of the quest, but way they handled it just utterly drained all the stakes. And as you noted, it's weird to see a misstep like this after they nailed it once in Sumeru.

"We're all in grave danger! What? Well no, we can't give specifics unless we risk not getting paid. Signed, Anonymous"

I mean, I wasn't exactly expecting the Einstein-Szilard letter 2.0 when I clicked that link, but this is pathetic.

lmao, Zoom is cooked. Their CEO has no idea how LLMs work or why they aren't fit for purpose, but he's 100% certain someone else will somehow solve this problem:

So is the AI model hallucination problem down there in the stack, or are you investing in making sure that the rate of hallucinations goes down?

I think solving the AI hallucination problem — I think that’ll be fixed.

But I guess my question is by who? Is it by you, or is it somewhere down the stack?

It’s someone down the stack.

Okay.

I think either from the chip level or from the LLM itself.

If I was them (and in a way I am) I’d probably kill the witnesses and bail.

So I totally get this conclusion, but I think it's worth slowing down and considering whether this makes as much sense as it seems at first glance. The fact that magic exists means that simply killing someone simply doesn't do much to shut them up, if a sufficiently powerful entity is willing to spend the resources. The fact that undeath exists means that killing someone has a very real risk of making them a bigger threat than they were in life--it's not like you can just stab a ghost. Cultists, being familiar with eldritch powers themselves, know this full well. This means that keeping people merely out of communication might be the simplest way to achieve their actual goal with the minimum of fuss. They don't need someone quiet forever, they just need enough secrecy to achieve their goals. Murdering every person who takes an interest in them is mission creep.

Also, keep in mind cults generally exist for specific purposes, and people join them for specific purposes. These purposes aren't necessarily overtly evil at the rank-and-file level, which is integral to their recruitment. The turnip farmer who wants to resurrect a dead harvest god to grow more turnips might be okay with some dodgy rituals the church wouldn't approve of, but straight up committing multiple murder might take some working up to, if he can be talked into it at all.

So in short, consider what your cult wants, and assume a degree of rationality and thoughtfulness (at least, when they're not channeling horrors from another plane). What do they want, and how the party could provide what they want?

You get medals and requisition points from playing that you can use to unlock new stratagems, which includes everything from weapons to orbital bombardment. Medals get you new weapons, cosmetics, etc. You also find samples you can collect on missions, and these unlock permanent upgrades for stratagems. There are player levels, but these just unlock new titles once you get past the basics.

The battle pass equivalent is Warbonds, which include new weapons, armor, cosmetics, etc. Unlike most games, warbonds don't expire and you can find enough premium currency while playing to get them without too much trouble.

On the whole, new warbond weapons tend to be different rather than obvious upgrades. The default assault rifle you get stays perfectly viable throughout the game.

All I really know is shoot bug and if you aren’t getting friendly fired to hell and back you’re playing wrong

You've pretty much got it down, though you also shoot terminators.

OpenAI: "Our AI is so powerful it's an existential threat to humanity if we don't solve the alignment issue!"

Also OpenAI: "We can devote maybe 20% of our resources to solving this, tops. We need the rest for parlor tricks and cluttering search results."

If they're really lucky, they'll end up working for the Laundry only once. Residual Human Resources is a bad way to go out.

Charles Stross' Laundry series is basically this concept set in the present day: magic is a branch of mathematics, which means it can be computed and programmed.

It is perhaps worth noting at this point the series genre is cosmic horror.

FWIW, the shield backpack and either AMR or Quasar/EAT have served me well against bots, but I typically run light armor. I bring the grenade pistol to handle factories.

If you aren't already using it, there's never been a better time to get into the AMR now that they buffed the damage and finally zeroed in the scope.