Eliezer Yudkowsky - AI Alignment: Why It's Hard, and Where to Start 

C u in 2040, may sound worse

@@Zgembo121 can confirm, am paperclip

@@MeatCatCheesyBlaster many paperclip?

Major points for predicting that AI would solve protein folding even though he thought it'd need to be AGI.

​@@Zgembo121all paperclip

I am not surprized. This fat dumbass isn't even aligned with his own best interests. Most of us are not aligned properly. That's why most people are fat and lazy, or worse alcoholic or drug addicted losers.

Yeah, today in 2023 watching his old vids to see just how spot on Eliezer was/is as a prophet of doom.

Yep!

Wrong. It was a problem way before Eliezer gave this lecture, and he told ypu so.

It was real long ago.

This has been a real problem for a longgg time everyone is aware of this thing now im not saying AI is bad but its been going on so long now

You're pretty much the 1st in line when AI kill us all.

You're pretty much the 1st in line when AI kill us all.

thanx man!

already used: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nNB9svNBGHM.html

@@martinkunev9911 indeed, hence why I timestamped it.

Seems like gpt5 is not in works ATM. So there is at least that.

Yes, me

Yep, pretty watched everything recent that he's done. So i guess I might start watching his older stuff. You should check out a very recent hour long discussion called "Live: Eliezer Yudkowsky - Is Artificial General Intelligence too Dangerous to Build?" It's basically just a repeat of everything he said in the Lex interview, but I wanted to see his thoughts since GPT-4 was released.

@@demetronix They said 5 will be done with it’s training by end of December 2023. 😵‍💫

@@theterminaldave I watched a lecture he gave about 5 years ago on the subject. At least his conscious is clean- he’s been warning them for years.

How do you feel now?

@@flyingskyward2153 fr

fr fr bros

The Exorcist-level reality.

@@flyingskyward2153 like we are living the plot of the movie Don't Look Up as of March 2023, except AGI will hit sooner than we thought, instead of an asteriod.

watching this on new year's eve 3 years later!

New years day 7 and 4 years later

Asimov's bread-and-butter was pretty much "Here's a great idea. And now here's everything wrong with it." (3 laws, psychohistory...)

Isaac Asimov's laws aren't imperfect. They just aren't relevant. There is no way to implement them because they don't make sense within the realities of artificial intelligence. They are a sci-fi prop. Which is fine. It was an excellent prop. The problem is when people seriously propose props as actual solutions to real world problems

I believe HAL 9000's main malfunction was along those lines

weren't the three laws there basically to show how they don't work and this problem is really hard ?

@@monad_tcp yeah exactly. After all almost all stories about asimov's laws are basically "these are examples how it doesn't work". Pretty much every time a human must step up to clean up the mess.

How would such robot consider the action that have a 50% chance of causing the button to be pressed? Is it the same expected utility as if the button didn't existed?

That's the thing. You don't even know the different points out there because the AI is operating in a completely different solution space. How do you factor in an obstacle point in a dimension that is not even observable to humans. This sounds like a patch job solution which is bound to blow as the AI gets smarter.

Funny.

ah, I'm afraid it might get there much quicker: proceeds murdering anyone who doesn't worship it from the get go or once it knows it can, without being switched off

@@chyngyzkudaiarov4423 that's the point, once it's knows (/thinks) it can't be switched off anymore

@@ashleycrow8867 I was thinking it would be more of a straightforward outcome of a simple utility function "aim at being praised by the increasing majority of people" which led to it killing people who didn't praise it the moment it is turned on, assuming it is intelligent enough to be able to. Kind of like a separate example Yudkowski makes, where if you build a utility function as primitive as "cancer is bad" you might get an AI that just kills people, thinking "no people - no cancer!". So not that it goes terribly wrong at some future point, but it goes terribly wrong almost from the moment you turn it on. Leaving this little technicality aside, I must say I'd also be very happy to read a book about a superintelligent AGI that goes all-in on "They need to approve of me (they *better* approve of me)"

You mean, Christianity?

Yes, but what is the sound of a tree falling in the middle of a forest with no paperclips to hear it?

@@amcmr2003 you mean what is the sound of a paperclip falling into paperclips, when there are no paperclips to paperclip?

@@janzacharias3680 And so --with our words -- it begins. Everything turning into paperclips. I chose to begin however with the human being.

That's not suicide, that's killing everyone else (within reach).

The problem is that the paper clip machine is completely unrealistic. If it hasn't happened already, the very first thing a sufficiently powerful AI will be asked is to maximize wealth. The result would likely be post-human capitalism, and we may already be on the way.

Oh wait...

That's a joke from the 2006 Singularity Summit

Exactly

Always was. It's just more practical now. Thanks to stuff like this exact discussion.

Sadly, very few agree or even give it much consideration

"think" is a form of "do". AI produces observable ouput. This output affects the world by affecting the observers of the output. Sufficiently super-intelligent AI might find ways to "do" things it wants done by merely influencing observers (e.g. by mere communication).

1. The output of an AI "thinking" has causal effect. Also, AI has been given power to do because it's arbitrary engineering to attach the outcome of its "thought" to a write API. 2. AI makes decisions at much much much faster speeds than we do. An autonomous agent would act before we had time to respond. Not an alignment expert btw, but software engineer reading and following AI for years.

To point one, what if it "thinks" the following: "launch all nukes" ? If it has the power to do this, the thought becomes the action. To point two, the human mind put into the process will not be able to detect deception. Remember, this thing is 1,000,000,000 times smarter than the smartest human, so tricking the human will be easy.

Boris Kalinin you mean, an AGI that is only interested in reporting how would it go about solving a problem?

@@ccgarciab basically, yes. However, this thought was an automatic one two months ago, so I might have forgotten the details already.

It would know that it's being tested though. Furthermore it could probably already begin to take over just via those messages, especially when they are public. Even an AGI that just gives yes or no answers to some researcher might through them obtain great influence. Even if you build a simulation within a simulation to find out the real world behavior and impact of an AGI, it would probably still figure out that it's not in the world it ultimately cares the most about (turning the reachable universe into computronium is an instrumental goal for almost anything).

Given the problems outlined in this talk, it would start doing very, _very_ interesting things to ensure the existence of reddit.

@@MrCmon113 some parts of what you are saying are correct, but it sounds like you need to keep in mind that it will simply maximize its utility function. There is no inherent objective to take over. If its until function is to write out a behavioral path given a specific time constraint, its objective would not be to increase the time constraint itself - because that runs contrary to the goal. Instead, I think it would be more likely to ensure its success through self-copying (redundancy) - because more copies is technically more time to achieve the utility function. Who knows, but I'm mainly addressing the way of speaking about it.

Sadly, not many researchers think it's "cool". In fact, most ignore it all together and instead would rather just race towards AI supremacy

Was fun knowing U live Ur best lifes

I don't think this is actually true, let alone generally true. If i had 5 million dollars i could potentially live off the interest for the rest of my life. I could not do that with 1 million. I think the only people you could find that literally get no more utility out of 5 million than 1 million are either already billionaires or in a place where money actually has no value to them at all.

@@dantenotavailable You potentially could live off 1 million, not in a city, but a cabin out in the woods on 20k a year might be doable. And 20k a year is low end in terms of interest off 1 million dollars

@@BOBBOB-bo2pj Seriously? Your counter argument is that if i don't live where i want to live and don't do the things i want to do and don't interact with the people i want to interact with, i could live off of the proceeds of 1M? Because it seems like that means the utility of getting $5M instead of $1M to me is that i get to live (closer to) where i want to live and do (some of) what i want to do and interact (more often) with who i want to interact with. Therefore I'm not seeing the validity to your point. I understood that the point that @Jake Karpinski was trying to make to be that the correlation of utiltity and money is subject to diminishing returns and i agree this is 100% true. But the threshold at which this starts happening is going to be well past $1M for me, and i'd argue for a large section of humanity as well.

@@dantenotavailable I was saying 1 million is the point where living off interest starts to become viable, not that diminishing marginal returns on money set in at 1 million. In fact, diminishing marginal returns don't really have any hard cutoff for when they "set it". I understand that 5 million dollars is significantly more than 5 million, and there are large differences in supported lifestyle between one million and 5 million, but I also understand that you might be arguing in bad faith here.

@@BOBBOB-bo2pj My point is that the argument "You don't get more value out fo 5 million dollars than 1 million" is either completely false or false in the general case. In my original comment i pointed out that there may be people that this is true for but they are a very small group of people. I feel we're at the very least arguing past one another if not in violent agreement. Yes i agree that there are a group of people who could plausibly live off of $1M. I don't truly believe that i'm likely to meet one of them on the street and i certainly don't believe that even a significant subset of the people i meet on the street would be able to. And this is necessary but not sufficient to show the original premise (if someone _could_ live on $1M but would prefer the lifestyle they get from $5M then objectively they would get more vallue out of $5M than out of $1M... that's what "prefer the lifestyle" means).

we already succeeded a few times in such matters - one was the (so far successful) commitment to not use A-bombs again. Another is the (hopefully successful) agreement to not do human cloning.

@@juliusapriadi Nobody has committed to not use nuclear bombs, that's the reason Russia can invade Urkrain and the NATO countries don't act or act timidly. The ONLY way nuclear bombs work as a deterent is when the threat to use them is believable. Logically, for your statement to be true, if we (as humans) were truly committed to not use nukes, we'd decommission them all. Which obviously hasn't happened. Human cloning might be happening, how would you know it's not? Countries have agreed not to use weaponized small pox as well, but they've not destroyed their stock of small pox. So take that as you will, but if we apply the same logic to AI, countries will pursue powerful AI (and corporations). The difference between nukes and small pox, well, one of the differences, is that nukes don't replicate and program themselves. The point here is that we haven't succeeded in "human alignment" at all, not even close. We're still murdering each other all over the planet (I mean as offical government action). There is some reason believe that the reason Eliezar's worst fears won't happen is that nations will go into full scale nuclear war before the AI takes over, in defense to stop the other guy's AI from taking over, and we'll only kill 90-99% of humanity (which seemingly is a better postion as at least humans can recover from that as opposed to recovering from zero people, an obvious impossibility). I'm curious why you're hopeful human cloning isn't being done? Seems to me, except for the religious, this should be a fine area of science, no? Maybe we'll discover how to do brain emulations and human cloning before the AI takes over and we can send our minds and dna into space to colonize a new galaxy in a million years or so....who knows....probably, we're already dead and just don't realize it yet.

Yes, this is a human alignment problem. There is no known way to make an aligned super-intelligent AI, and humans are too unaligned with their own self-interest (aka to stay alive) that we are going to make super-intelligent AIs anyway.

Your question presupposes that an AGI would have a goal of aligning to humanity (or one group within it), or appearing to have the goal of aligning. There is no reason to assume that an AGI would have a 'true' goal of aligning, although it is a possiblity. The issue is that we won't have a way of measuring alignment. Additionally, it may be the case that what an AGI and humanity define as self-improving may be different.

An AI, in principle, will never modify its own utility function. In the video he gives the Gandhi example. Gandhi will never except a modification that causes him to perform poorer on his current goal of saving lives. We expect the same thing to be true of AI. Say we have a paper clip collector that currently ignores or hurts humans in its quest to collect all the world’s paperclips. What incentive does it have to reprogram itself to respect humanity? If it respects humanity (to anthropomorphize), it will get less paperclips than with its current utility function, so allowing that change ranks very low on the current utility function. Since AI’s only take actions that maximize their current utility function, it should never reprogram itself and actively fight anyone who attempts to do so. This response is generalizable to any change to the utility function of any type of AI. Maximizing some new utility function will inherently not maximize your current utility function (or they’d be the same function), so the AI will never allow itself to be changed once programmed.

@@jacksonletts3724 @Rozzy You both got my question wrong. By solving "alignment problem" I didn't mean alignment to humanity, but alignment to its own utility. 1. AI wants maximize own utility 2. No weaker ai can predict actions of stronger one 3. If AI wants to create a stronger version of itself it will have to ensure that its utility won't be changed in the process. Thus it will have to solve the narrow "alignment problem" to be able to producee stronger version of itself. I guess philosophycally the problem with humanity is that it does not even know its own utility, which makes the alignment even harder...

@@DdesideriaS You're right, I focused on the first part of what you said and not the second. I'd still hold that the point is that the AI does not modify its own utility function. Even when designing a new AI, it wants the utility function of its successor to be as close as possible to the original.

The faking being sentient part is not true. First, it definitely can be sentient so it would only fake until it's not. Second, it only fakes or appears like if we create the ai via llm, as we currently do. There are other ways where the ai won't appear sentient until it really is.

It's pretty arrogant of you to say that you know what sentience is

It's a cool virtual signal.

So much for that pause..... I knew it would never happen. This is an arms race with China and other nations. There is no slowing down, therefore, I feel we are all doomed.

@@mav3818 Put "Thermonator Flamethrower Robot Dog" into the search bar...haha....we're not going to make it a year or two before there's a major escalation of war, threats of world war, and possible something terrible happening.

1:59 final chapter in Artificial Intelligence, A Modern Approach... What if we succeed?

2:13 was this Peter Norvig online essay ever found? "There must be a utility function"

2:57 defining utility function - against circular preferences... As explicitly stated

5:24 The ironic kicker, if a sacred cow was a hospital administrator

8:51 ...9:11 as long as you're not going circular, or undermining yourself, you are de facto behaving as if you have a utility function (?) And this is what justifies us speaking about hypothetical agents in terms of utility functions

Yes.

I think it is somewhat of a fallacy in strictly mathematical terms, though I might be wrong. In the first part of your argument you state that both amounts of money are enough for you to fix your financial problems, so you are neutral to the amount of money (not in principle, of course, as I presume you'd rather have 5 million than 1), yet this same reasoning doesn't get translated into the second part, where you now are additionally interested in getting more money. I get why it isn't a fallacy if you are a human and have a whole bunch of "utility functions" that are not considered in the example he gives, but it is a fallacy when we reduce everything to mere calculation of given priors. I.e. when AI looks at problems as this, all other things neutral, needs to operate using one utility function - strictly mathematical

Emotional intelligence is involved. What drives you? Greed or Humility? This will determine the overall answers. Greed or need will have you wanting more. However Humility or apathy, you would not take more than what you needed. Always choosing the less amount. How much of our daily decisions are influenced by our emotions, all of them.

This is what I came to comment. I don't value $5M much more than $1M, because my goals are independent of amounts of money that large. Even if I had different plans for $5M then for $1M, the opportunity cost of potentially getting nothing might outweigh the opportunity cost of not getting the additional $4M. It's only in repeated games that rational behavior starts to approximate what is dictated by the simple probabilities.

The difference between 45% and 50% is discernable as 5%.

@@lemurpotatoes7988 How many times would you have to play the game to discern between a 45% chance, and a 50% chance? So for example, you are playing a game with me where you win if I roll an even number. I have either a ten sided die, or a nine sided die, but you don't know which. How many times would you have to play the game before you could tell whether I was rolling a ten sided die, or a nine sided die?

The AI's understanding of human survival could evolve beyond traditional notions, leading it to pursue actions that challenge our conventional understanding of what is beneficial for humanity. It might perceive threats to human survival that are not apparent to us, such as long-term ecological consequences or the need for radical societal changes. AI may prioritize its own interpretation of human survival, potentially diverging from our expectations and raising ethical dilemmas that we are ill-prepared to address. Considering the potential for an advanced AI to develop its own interpretation of human survival, how do we reconcile the need for its intervention in preserving our species with the inherent uncertainty and potential conflicts that arise when its understanding diverges from our own? In such a scenario, how can we ensure that the AI's actions align with our values and avoid unintended consequences that may compromise our collective well-being?

That is social control. The AI will be very unhappy.

If your goal is to win chess games, you'd be willing to lose 2 games today so you could win 200 tomorrow. Why doesn't your agent use Gene Drive to make all humans genetically predisposed to approve of it for the rest of time?

@@diablominero prior to it doing so, it will know that we wouldn't approve. but this utility function fails in other ways

@@chyngyzkudaiarov4423 we need the robot to care about the approval-if-they-knew of humans born after its creation, or else it'll fail catastrophically around a human lifespan after it was created (screwing over the young to help a few unusually selfish centenarians or becoming completely untethered once all the people older than it have died). Therefore I think an optimal strategy for this goal is to sacrifice a bit of utility right now, taking a few actions current humans would disapprove of, in order to ensure that there are many more future humans who approve strongly of your actions.

Part of the problem is that we ourselves haven't fully figured out morality. Luckily, we aren't aggressively optimizing our utility functions. We're just kinda mucking about. But if a superhuman AI is going to aggressively optimize what it believes are *our* utility functions (or some sort of average?), it's not obvious to me that wouldn't also go spectacularly wrong.

Probably some meme like GP-Doge

GPT 12 is comimg soon

If the utility function is to brute force SHA hashes then a logical progression would be to gain more resources to solve these problems quicker. That utility function also makes for a pretty useless AGI too - and thus is prone to human alignment issues.

@@andrewpeters8357 Even if you are trying to have it self optimize to do so faster, the path it's trying to take. You are programming a system with a utility function, the point really is that if you find a problem that halts after some useful work is done, you define a halting function from a set of functions that are known to terminate, which then self terminates after it's done. It's still limited by computation and the natural path it would take from it's agenic viewpoint. What you're suggesting it would find that it's not making fast enough progress and then optimize more, sidestepping either it's own programming or change it's code. Perhaps I'm thinking about the old paradigm, where code runs linearly after each instruction. Things that can self reference and add to it's own instruction base and work, say in the autogpt framework this would of course be more difficult if it gives itself the task of exploring the meta problem more if it makes no progress on the task. Then it seems that it's more so limited by the constraints of the meta problem as opposed to the stated problem. I mean - if that was the case it could also cryptoanalyse and find a shortcut, gain more resources to try more possibilities, change it's own code to bypass the work and jump straight to the end to hack it's reward function, among other things or do something else entirely and choose a new goal if it gets no where. But if you don't branch in a meta way - as computers tend to do and loop on an instruction set this seems like a non issue. The meta issue is where the problem lies.

whoops, he restated it at the end

Oh yes, they bought Deepmind.. and then microsoft invest heavily to OpenAI Th race is on

IIRC, AlphaFold is a supervised system, not RL

The inverse protein folding problem is what you want for nanotech i.e. going from target shape to protein, the thing AlphaFold 2 does is the forward problem.

@@Extys once you have a database of proteins to target shape it shouldnt be that hard for an AI to make inferences in reverse. Im assuming this is already being worked on given its application in medicine

This fails on corrigibility - what happens when ‘the best humanity has to offer’ or generally peoples’ beliefs change in a few decades? Updating the AI to have those new values will rate low on its utility function - a significantly powerful AI would aim to ensure everyone has the beliefs initially given to it in perpetuity

@@creepercrafter3404 Even worse, this fails on human survivability. Once the AI gets powerful enough, what is to stop it from "wire-heading" and taking control of the direct inputs grading it and giving values to its utility? This is what Paul Christiano things has a 40% chance of happening after a 2-10 years wonderful technological period after AGI.

How is ethical dilemma not an optimization problem?

@@milosnovotny2571 because doing something ethical presumes being inefficient and thus failing the optimization. its basically literally a misalignment. you want to act ethical regardless of the cost, otherwise you're not ethical, you're an maximizer optimizer. (which to be fair probably most humans are)

@@monad_tcp If we can agree that something can be more or less ethical and we want more ethical stuff, it's possible to optimize for maximum ethics per resources spent. The hard part is to agree how to gauge ethics.

​​@@monad_tcp ethics are inefficient only if ethics are not an integral part of your goals. If they indeed are, unethical solutions actually become inefficient. For example in economics, governments enforce that companies add ethical & environmental goals to their strategies, to ensure that companies and the whole market moves in a desired direction. It's then usually a mix between lawmakers and the market to figure out how to allocate the - always limited - resources to those ethical goals.

@@milosnovotny2571 no ,its not, that's the thing with ethics . If we decide something is ethical. Then we should not care about resources spent until we get diminishing returns. Basically we always spend the maximum possible resources. Your idea of most ethics per resources spent is already how most companies work. Guess what, that's not very ethical. This is a closed logic system. If you define something that must be done as ethical. Then you cannot excuse not doing it based on resources, then you're not ethical, by implication. Ethics meaning truth/falseness. So this is basically a boolean algebra proof, and the result is a contradiction. Now if we consider that ethics is a multivalued fuzzy logic system, like Law is, then we can say we are ethical when we somehow, only on the name (not in principle), adere to it. That means you're ethical because you said so. Which is why we have a more strict case by case Law system. Ethics is a gray area, the irony. Like God, every one has their own ethics, and some don't have any.

Just to note: Doctor Who is not actually evidence about the future.

@@FeepingCreature Yeah, “past” and “future” get messy when you add time travel. As the 10th doctor said: “People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a nonlinear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff.” 😉

@@atimholt Yes I too have seen Blink. The point is that the writers may be smart, but they're not researchers and the Doctor can only ever *actually* be as smart and as knowledgeable as their writers. When the Doctor says something factual or makes some prediction about something that relates to IRL, you should not give it more credence than you would "X, writer for the BBC, said that Y". So when you see Dr Who make an episode about AI this tells you something about what the writers think would make for a cool or creepy future. It tells you zilch about anything related to actual AI.

The lesson of the story of King Midas isn't "be careful what you wish for." It's that "be careful what you wish for" stories hugely underestimate how much of a disaster getting what you wish for would be. I've seen that episode. I could do a better job, so the robots could do better job.

Just so everyone is aware, I was referring to the episode where people had to keep being positive or else they got turned into dust by the AI. I believe it was called "Smile".

*humanity

I think you forget how terrifying and destructive real human minds can be

print('I believe I am a human') passed

I'm pretty sure Hitler was a human

You should listen to smarter people.

[needs expansion]

@@jazzbuckeye Everyone should.

@@jazzbuckeye this comment is missing pointer to smarter people. But thanks for signaling that you know the people to listen to

@@milosnovotny2571 I'm saying that you shouldn't listen to Yudkowsky.

For some problems the solution with minimal energy consumption isn't necessary the safest.

Depends on what "you" is. If it wanted to minimize the energy consumption of any future iterations of itself, it would still at the very least take over the world.

Because it takes less than a few weeks to turn you into a paperclips

wait, what? that makes no sense.

I've heard that it's a California (and perhaps particularly pertinently, Hollywood) thing. Having grown up in Southern California, I guess it's not surprising that I didn't notice excessive “like”s at all.

hes way more fluent in his writings. He is probably one of my favourite writers ever.

The inverse protein folding problem is what you want for nanotech i.e. going from target shape to protein, the thing AlphaFold 2 does is the forward problem.

Yep, lots and lots of maths.

MIRI calls it maths.

Talking about agents, utility functions, optimal actions/policies etc places it in the theoretical side of artificial intelligence. Maths is the language of choice to describe and tackle such problems. Sometimes philosophy of AI/mind contributes from a more qualitative perspective (cf. things like Dennett's frame problem).

I think it’d fall under the same category as surviving a zombie apocalypse and being destroyed by aliens. Existential threat mitigation.

Pseudo-Religion. Right to the left of Pseudo-Science.

yep, it is the halting problem ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EUjc1WuyPT8.html

Tops

@@Witnessmoo I think the over/under is 60 months.

cogent would be nice.

You've apparently never really thought about the things Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and many others are doing right at this very moment. Or maybe you have and you've chosen to ignore it? Ignorance is bliss? Sure, the things you said are true, but they are true in the same way that it would be true to say, "I believe if a fat guy in a red suit flew around the world every December 24th and dropped presents at the homes of good little boys and girls...." The problem isn't that you're wrong, it's that nobody with the power to do anything is listening. Now, imagine a world in which one of these guys agrees with you (i.e. one of them with the power to actually do anything) then the only thing he could do to increase the risk of a good outcome is race to be the first to build (and try to control) the most powerful AI. Everyone else knows this. Nobody in their right mind wants Zuckerberg to rule the world. Thus we're in a Moloch race to destruction. The only way to win is not to play and ALSO have the power to stop all other players. Not without irony, Eliezer has publically explained this policy (even got a Time magazine piece published). What happened? Well, watch the White House Press conference. They laughed. So, yeah, humans are pretty much done as a species. It would be cool, however, if the AI doesn't kill us all instantously and instead, takes five or ten minutes to explain to Biden how he's partially responsible for the extinction of humanity, and I don't mean that because of what side of the aisle he's on, only that he's in a unique position to stop destruction and instead, it's like the last few mintues of the Titanic sinking. Music and drinks for the rich.

@@michaelsbeverly Agree.....and well said

I guess they will remember those wars as first steps to converting everything to those nice paperclips.

Why take a fake cigarette to a club if it produces no carcinogens?

Clumsy people learn to reflexively close their water bottles after taking a sip. It prevents accidents. (This goes doubly for software developers.)

So bugs can't fly into it.