And what framework would there be for international cooperation? Without that element, this would just be self-destruction in a global race.

Maybe we're about to test the scifi trope that a common enemy - like a superior invading alien life form - is the only thing that could unite all of humanity.

I don't really agree that ML killed their business. I paid for their product early on before it was even done but they never really developed their product. I held out hope to the end of a year and ended up never using my purchase.

Compare that to shadcn, which had visible growing pains and yet reached rocketship fame. Shadcn is evidence that developers were hungry for yet another library, and it's also evidence that users were willing to tolerate rough code on the ride to maturity.

I don't believe Tailwind's component libraries deserved to win.

I agree. I also paid, but the components themselves were hard to use and required quite a bit of work to integrate into our product. For example, most components had a new (slightly different) button and parts of the components didn't have clear boundaries from what I remember.

Besides that, quite quickly there were many other free, and arguably better, alternatives available (like flowbite, preline, daisyui, etc) that I ended up using instead.

Before we discussed how important security was, we got insurance, we made libraries and products, we used compliance software, etc. Except how honest were we about all that stuff? How much risk was actually in the air, and what was keeping us accountable on security in either direction of over or under-investment?

Now a reckoning is here. The potential to be attacked might actually translate to being attacked.

People have died due to ransomware attacks on hospitals. Powerplants have been attacked. Stuxnet and industrial control malware exists.

What will the AI do that hasn't been tried before?

AI is about automation. Drones have killed people before. If they automatically kill people is that different? Is your worry that mere automation is not novel enough?

Snipers have killed people before. If snipers are now automated, is the worry that there’s not enough creativity to warrant a discussion past saying “same old, same old”?

Quite correct with that question.

I believe the universal answer is: incompetent malicious actors are now capable too. Which implies the pool from which to draw the intersection between capable and malicious has grown. (That's my reading)

We're talking about AI developing weapons I guess because we're very focused on generative tech, but AI is already a part of weapons systems today.

OpenAI is willing to credit so plagiarism is not the right framing here.

It's not clear to me that they would have credited the authors if they had not got in touch with OpenAI first.

That's by design, of course. Whether people got smarter or dumber we might still assign 100 to be the median.

That half of any sizeable population will always be dumber than the average of that population is thing that feels worrisome even though its just how statistics work.

Scratch's problem is ecosystem. It develops UX for children who are still early to the keyboard but children learn so fast, and at some point they get past the high friction stage and end up in a desert.

That’s a weak goalpost, the tech you’re talking about will land soon and then we’ll have to move goalposts again.

Kuzu appears to be a retired effort.

ladybugdb ( https://github.com/LadybugDB/ladybug ) appears to be an open source successor to Kuzu fwiw

Sure, but it’s a solid foundation and available to fork, which is why I asked.

Why do you have to ask? Because you don't have easy access to the data. Whether or not your nation has a culture of honesty, big scale communication is always going to be dumbed down.