Bonifratz

Thanks, very interesting. I think I had read about the US occupying Greenland during WWII (defensively), but not about the buy offers.

And yes, obviously nothing legitimises these threats. I was just interested to see whether Trump came up with it or whether it has some history in US political circles, which it appears it does.

A related question I have: Was the US ever (publicly) interested in “acquiring” Greenland before Trump? His comments are the first of the sort I ever noticed, but I could imagine the idea having a longer tradition.

Don’t know if true but also completely plausible.

It sounds and looks a lot like the 2015 Colectiv nightclub fire, the 2013 Kiss nightclub fire, or the 2003 Station nightclub fire:

• Packed rooms
• Fire (presumably) started by pyrotechnics/Roman candles
• Flammable materials (polyethurane?) used in building/soundproofing leading to instant spreading of the fire

One report mentioned the bar was mostly underground. This is pure speculation but I would not be surprised if there was a dearth of (emergency) exits, and if many of the casualties and injuries resulted from crowd crush and smoke inhalation.

In any case, it SHOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE for a bar or nightclub to go up in flames within seconds. Somebody fucked up big time.

Condolences to everybody affected.

I can agree with that. (As an aside, I think scientific findings are almost always exaggerated like this in popular journalism.)

I’d say the long and short of it is that we simply don’t (and can’t) know yet. But I think more research on possible links between AI and psychotic delusions is definitely useful, because I find the idea of a connection plausible.

Alright, but the point is that the “X level of safety” AI is at might be a dangerous level in the first place. I don’t think anybody is arguing that AI got more dangerous as a psychosis risk factor over the past year or so, they’re arguing that AI was a risk factor to begin with, and with increased AI use more evidence of this turns up. So you saying that the inherent risk of AI hasn’t changed is kind of a moot point because that’s not what the debate is about.

Also notice that I clearly said it’s too early to tell one way or the other, so there’s no reason to malign me as uncritical.

That’s what the article says, yes:

“The technology might not introduce the delusion, but the person tells the computer it’s their reality and the computer accepts it as truth and reflects it back, so it’s complicit in cycling that delusion,” Sakata told the WSJ.

Huh? The whole point of this emerging scientific debate is that AI use might be proportionally unsafe, i. e. it might be a risk factor causing and/or exacerbating psychosis. Now sure this is still just a hypothesis and it’s too early to make definite epidemiological statements, but it’s just as wrong to blankly state that AI is “still just as safe”.