I am excited about the focus on affordable mortgage rates for first time homebuyers. My (politically non-aligned) spouse has equipped (a VERY large number of) hardworking low-income families to purchase their first homes— a 3% mortgage product would be a huge deal. The positive social impact of homeownership cannot be overstated. I cannot think of a candidate that understands community economic development as RFK Jr does.
[I will give a hat tip to Carter for his work with Habitat but that model has limitations — sadly those houses do not get built in “neighborhoods of opportunity “ with better schools and amenities.]
STRATEGY TO FOLLOW IF JFK JR. DECIDE TO RUN AS INDEPENDENT
We need a kind of election expert do explain us the best strategy to adopt if RFK Jr. decide to run as Independent.
It is important to understand that in United States, it is not one person, one vote.
¨In 2016, Donald Trump won 304 electoral college votes to take the White House but actually received almost three million fewer votes across the country than rival Hillary Clinton.¨
So, how to avoid this if there are three political parties? My point is, how to win the election with the Electoral College if RFK Jr. decide to run as Independent?
How the electoral college determines who wins the U.S. presidency. What is the electoral college? ¨Not a physical college, the electoral college is a process for electing the U.S. president. It's different from that of other republics, where citizens vote directly for the president.¨ Read More https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/electoral-college-explainer-1.5768507
This is a very important time for America tk be involved in foreign affairs as the so-called second third worlds realign themselves following the disastrous failure of the "West" to play fair with them. RFKJr. should get in on the ground floor of this realignment.
RFK ought to worry publicly about the dangers of Artificial Intelligence. He ought also to attend the conference in November at Bletchley Park, UK about it. Here's The Guardian's article today about AI's horrific dangers:
"AI-focused tech firms locked in ‘race to the bottom’, warns MIT professor
Physicist Max Tegmark says competition too intense for tech executives to pause development to consider AI risks
The scientist behind a landmark letter calling for a pause in developing powerful artificial intelligence systems has said tech executives did not halt their work because they are locked in a “race to the bottom”.
Max Tegmark, a co-founder of the Future of Life Institute, organised an open letter in March calling for a six-month pause in developing giant AI systems.
Despite support from more than 30,000 signatories, including Elon Musk and the Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, the document failed to secure a hiatus in developing the most ambitious systems.
Speaking to the Guardian six months on, Tegmark said he had not expected the letter to stop tech companies working towards AI models more powerful than GPT-4, the large language model that powers ChatGPT, because competition has become so intense.
“I felt that privately a lot of corporate leaders I talked to wanted [a pause] but they were trapped in this race to the bottom against each other. So no company can pause alone,” he said.
The letter warned of an “out-of-control race” to develop minds that no one could “understand, predict, or reliably control”, and urged governments to intervene if a moratorium on developing systems more powerful than GPT-4 could not be agreed between leading AI companies such as Google, ChatGPT owner OpenAI and Microsoft.
It asked: “Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us? Should we risk loss of control of our civilisation?”
Tegmark, a professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he viewed the letter as a success.
“The letter has had more impact than I thought it would,” he said, pointing to a political awakening on AI that has included US Senate hearings with tech executives and the UK government convening a global summit on AI safety in November.
Expressing alarm about AI had gone from being taboo to becoming a mainstream view since the letter’s publication, Tegmark said. The letter from his thinktank was followed in May by a statement from the Center for AI Safety, backed by hundreds of tech executives and academics, declaring that AI should be considered a societal risk on a par with pandemics and nuclear war.
“I felt there was a lot of pent-up anxiety around going full steam ahead with AI, that people around the world were afraid of expressing for fear of coming across as scare-mongering luddites. The letter legitimised talking about it; the letter made it socially acceptable.
“So you’re getting people like [letter signatory] Yuval Noah Harari saying it, you’ve started to get politicians asking tough questions,” said Tegmark, whose thinktank researches existential threats and potential benefits from cutting-edge technology.
Fears around AI development range from the immediate, such as the ability to generate deepfake videos and mass-produce disinformation, to the existential risk posed by super-intelligent AIs that evade human control or make irreversible and highly consequential decisions.
Tegmark warned against describing the development of digital “god-like general intelligence” as a long-term threat, citing some AI practitioners who believe it could happen within a few years.
The Swedish-American scientist said November’s UK AI safety summit, to be held at Bletchley Park, was a “wonderful thing”. His thinktank has said the summit should target three achievements: establishing a common understanding of the severity of risks posed by AI; recognising that a unified global response is needed; and embracing the need for urgent government intervention.
He added that a hiatus in development was still needed until global agreed safety standards were met. “Making models more powerful than what we have now, that has to be put on pause until they can meet agreed-upon safety standards.” He added: “Agreeing on what the safety standards are will naturally cause the pause.”
Tegmark also urged governments to take action on open-source AI models that can be accessed and adapted by members of the public. Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta recently released an open-source large language model, called Llama 2, and was warned by one UK expert that such a move was akin to “giving people a template to build a nuclear bomb”.
“Dangerous technology should not be open source, regardless of whether it is bio-weapons or software,” Tegmark said.
The Swedish-American scientist said November’s UK AI safety summit, to be held at Bletchley Park, was a “wonderful thing”. His thinktank has said the summit should target three achievements: establishing a common understanding of the severity of risks posed by AI; recognising that a unified global response is needed; and embracing the need for urgent government intervention.
He added that a hiatus in development was still needed until global agreed safety standards were met. “Making models more powerful than what we have now, that has to be put on pause until they can meet agreed-upon safety standards.” He added: “Agreeing on what the safety standards are will naturally cause the pause.”
Tegmark also urged governments to take action on open-source AI models that can be accessed and adapted by members of the public. Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta recently released an open-source large language model, called Llama 2, and was warned by one UK expert that such a move was akin to “giving people a template to build a nuclear bomb”.
“Dangerous technology should not be open source, regardless of whether it is bio-weapons or software,” Tegmark said.
First, I hope that RFK’s well-meaning response about Tim D that I saw on X gets overlooked—because it was extremely unfortunate wording that could form the basis of many a tirade from the Left.
Thank you !!
PS: Also - the graphics and cartoons are also outstanding !!
The whole “anti-vaxxer” thing is going to backfire. People are waking up to the lies of big Pharma. Anti-vaxxer = critical thinker.
I am excited about the focus on affordable mortgage rates for first time homebuyers. My (politically non-aligned) spouse has equipped (a VERY large number of) hardworking low-income families to purchase their first homes— a 3% mortgage product would be a huge deal. The positive social impact of homeownership cannot be overstated. I cannot think of a candidate that understands community economic development as RFK Jr does.
[I will give a hat tip to Carter for his work with Habitat but that model has limitations — sadly those houses do not get built in “neighborhoods of opportunity “ with better schools and amenities.]
George Washington was an Independent president
STRATEGY TO FOLLOW IF JFK JR. DECIDE TO RUN AS INDEPENDENT
We need a kind of election expert do explain us the best strategy to adopt if RFK Jr. decide to run as Independent.
It is important to understand that in United States, it is not one person, one vote.
¨In 2016, Donald Trump won 304 electoral college votes to take the White House but actually received almost three million fewer votes across the country than rival Hillary Clinton.¨
So, how to avoid this if there are three political parties? My point is, how to win the election with the Electoral College if RFK Jr. decide to run as Independent?
How do the US presidential elections work? https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z9d43j6
Presidential election process https://www.usa.gov/election
How the electoral college determines who wins the U.S. presidency. What is the electoral college? ¨Not a physical college, the electoral college is a process for electing the U.S. president. It's different from that of other republics, where citizens vote directly for the president.¨ Read More https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/electoral-college-explainer-1.5768507
United States presidential election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election
Please read the United States Presidential Election Procedure. It is complicated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election#Procedure
Tulsi for VP!
This is a very important time for America tk be involved in foreign affairs as the so-called second third worlds realign themselves following the disastrous failure of the "West" to play fair with them. RFKJr. should get in on the ground floor of this realignment.
RFK ought to worry publicly about the dangers of Artificial Intelligence. He ought also to attend the conference in November at Bletchley Park, UK about it. Here's The Guardian's article today about AI's horrific dangers:
"AI-focused tech firms locked in ‘race to the bottom’, warns MIT professor
Physicist Max Tegmark says competition too intense for tech executives to pause development to consider AI risks
The scientist behind a landmark letter calling for a pause in developing powerful artificial intelligence systems has said tech executives did not halt their work because they are locked in a “race to the bottom”.
Max Tegmark, a co-founder of the Future of Life Institute, organised an open letter in March calling for a six-month pause in developing giant AI systems.
Despite support from more than 30,000 signatories, including Elon Musk and the Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, the document failed to secure a hiatus in developing the most ambitious systems.
Speaking to the Guardian six months on, Tegmark said he had not expected the letter to stop tech companies working towards AI models more powerful than GPT-4, the large language model that powers ChatGPT, because competition has become so intense.
“I felt that privately a lot of corporate leaders I talked to wanted [a pause] but they were trapped in this race to the bottom against each other. So no company can pause alone,” he said.
The letter warned of an “out-of-control race” to develop minds that no one could “understand, predict, or reliably control”, and urged governments to intervene if a moratorium on developing systems more powerful than GPT-4 could not be agreed between leading AI companies such as Google, ChatGPT owner OpenAI and Microsoft.
It asked: “Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us? Should we risk loss of control of our civilisation?”
Tegmark, a professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he viewed the letter as a success.
“The letter has had more impact than I thought it would,” he said, pointing to a political awakening on AI that has included US Senate hearings with tech executives and the UK government convening a global summit on AI safety in November.
Expressing alarm about AI had gone from being taboo to becoming a mainstream view since the letter’s publication, Tegmark said. The letter from his thinktank was followed in May by a statement from the Center for AI Safety, backed by hundreds of tech executives and academics, declaring that AI should be considered a societal risk on a par with pandemics and nuclear war.
“I felt there was a lot of pent-up anxiety around going full steam ahead with AI, that people around the world were afraid of expressing for fear of coming across as scare-mongering luddites. The letter legitimised talking about it; the letter made it socially acceptable.
“So you’re getting people like [letter signatory] Yuval Noah Harari saying it, you’ve started to get politicians asking tough questions,” said Tegmark, whose thinktank researches existential threats and potential benefits from cutting-edge technology.
Fears around AI development range from the immediate, such as the ability to generate deepfake videos and mass-produce disinformation, to the existential risk posed by super-intelligent AIs that evade human control or make irreversible and highly consequential decisions.
Tegmark warned against describing the development of digital “god-like general intelligence” as a long-term threat, citing some AI practitioners who believe it could happen within a few years.
The Swedish-American scientist said November’s UK AI safety summit, to be held at Bletchley Park, was a “wonderful thing”. His thinktank has said the summit should target three achievements: establishing a common understanding of the severity of risks posed by AI; recognising that a unified global response is needed; and embracing the need for urgent government intervention.
He added that a hiatus in development was still needed until global agreed safety standards were met. “Making models more powerful than what we have now, that has to be put on pause until they can meet agreed-upon safety standards.” He added: “Agreeing on what the safety standards are will naturally cause the pause.”
Tegmark also urged governments to take action on open-source AI models that can be accessed and adapted by members of the public. Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta recently released an open-source large language model, called Llama 2, and was warned by one UK expert that such a move was akin to “giving people a template to build a nuclear bomb”.
“Dangerous technology should not be open source, regardless of whether it is bio-weapons or software,” Tegmark said.
The Swedish-American scientist said November’s UK AI safety summit, to be held at Bletchley Park, was a “wonderful thing”. His thinktank has said the summit should target three achievements: establishing a common understanding of the severity of risks posed by AI; recognising that a unified global response is needed; and embracing the need for urgent government intervention.
He added that a hiatus in development was still needed until global agreed safety standards were met. “Making models more powerful than what we have now, that has to be put on pause until they can meet agreed-upon safety standards.” He added: “Agreeing on what the safety standards are will naturally cause the pause.”
Tegmark also urged governments to take action on open-source AI models that can be accessed and adapted by members of the public. Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta recently released an open-source large language model, called Llama 2, and was warned by one UK expert that such a move was akin to “giving people a template to build a nuclear bomb”.
“Dangerous technology should not be open source, regardless of whether it is bio-weapons or software,” Tegmark said.
First, I hope that RFK’s well-meaning response about Tim D that I saw on X gets overlooked—because it was extremely unfortunate wording that could form the basis of many a tirade from the Left.