11011001

> In this case it’s less fraud and more the fact that it can take months or even years to undo a death certificate during which time one would experience undue hardship. Making it hard to sign is by design.

It should be noted that absolutely none of those goals were achieved by the above-mentioned poorly implemented biometric requirement. The only thing that achieved was inconvenience that needed to be worked around to get the real job done.

This is probably a better link than their project-tracker: https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/Blogger

> No updates to Blogger have been documented since September 2020. Google has also moved away from Blogger for their own company blogs. For these reasons, Blogger may be at risk of shutting down.

> Archive Team did a discovery between February and May 2015, but did not begin downloading actual content until November 2023.

> Smartcard + faceid?

You're missing the point.

The solution is for the tech people to stop thinking they're the center of the universe, and drop requirements that make no sense for their users.

In the case of the death certificate, that means dropping the extra authentication requirements for that computer application*, or just having the doctor print out the certificate and sign it, like it was always done.

* Software engineers suffer from a certain kind of brain rot where they assume the computer system itself is the last and only line of defense (so enforce onerous authentication requirements). In some cases that might be the right call, but in others is makes more sense to loosen the requirements and rely on other systems (e.g. auditing and after-the-fact investigation).

> Why is the AGI interested in copying itself? Why is that more likely than the AGI becoming a nihilist, seeing no point in itself, and offing itself?

Because suicidal nihilism would be a "bug" from the perspective of the builders, which they would seek to fix in the next iteration.

An interest in "copying itself" seems like it could fall out accidentally from a self-improvement goal.

> EDIT: As noted in a subthread, I outclevered myself and also a bunch of human commentators, as the problem I proposed doesn't have a solution and neither ChatGPT, I, and also other presumably human commentators correctly identified that -- I had everything eat something, and the normal wolf/sheep/cabbage of course has the cabbage eating nothing.

Though doesn't that prove the point that it's just pattern-matching? If it was actually reasoning, it wouldn't have provided a "solution" to an unsolvable question.

>> Exactly. The rational fear is that they will automate many lower middle class jobs and cause unemployment, not that Terminator was a documentary.

> Wasn't this supposed to happen when PCs came out?

Did it not?

PCs may not have caused a catastrophic level of unemployment, but as they say "past performance is not a guarantee of future results." As automation gets more and more capable, it's foolish to point to past iterations as "proof" that this (or some future) iteration of automation will also be fine.