63 jili slot

In conclusion, the raid on the Defense Security Command in South Korea has sent shockwaves through the country and raised serious concerns about the integrity of its security apparatus. It is imperative that swift and effective action be taken to address the breach and restore public confidence in the government's ability to safeguard national security. The coming days will be critical in determining the extent of the security breach and the measures needed to prevent such incidents from happening again in the future.None

By: Dawood Sardar “When I came to you with those calculations we thought we might start a chain reaction that would destroy the entire world, I believe we did”. The above mentioned quote is from the multiple Oscar winning film Oppenheimer in which the lead character Dr. Robert J. Oppenheimer is talking to Einstein about the invention of the nuclear bomb. Even though the quote is about nuclear weapons, some might say that it better describes the AI powered lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) more accurately in the modern times. According to the DOD 3000.9 Autonomous Weapons Systems can be defined as “A weapon system that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by an operator. This includes, but is not limited to, operator-supervised autonomous weapon systems that are designed to allow operators to override operation of the weapon system, but can select and engage targets without further operator input after activation.’’ The definition can be deemed as accurate but can also be viewed as a broad interpretation of the Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS). According to this definition, we can conclude that the first AWS were the pit traps and that land mines are also autonomous weapons systems. It is not the type of weapon systems that come to mind when people think of Autonomous Weapons Systems. In modern times, the AWS are mostly used in order to describe the AI controlled unmanned weapon systems. Rapid digitalization has led to these modern autonomous weapons. Since the inception of warfare, humanity has always strived to be one step ahead of its enemy, whether it’s using some new projectile weapons or utilizing fire in a way the enemy gets startled. Centuries of this cycle has led us to present day where it is no longer hypothetical to fear a hoard of drones aiming at their target and taking the shot with no human operator. There are many benefits of AWS such as precision, flexibility in combat, prevention of loss of lives, the cost-effectiveness that these systems provide. Another aspect of AWS is their uncomplicated nature in opposition to human based weapons. As an AI would theoretically never defy an order if it’s not programmed to do so. If we were to explain the current autonomy of weapons to some general from the 16 th century, he would probably think that humans have made “the perfect soldier”. The disadvantages of AWS include unintended consequences, proliferation to non-state actors and most importantly the ethical considerations of putting the lives of humans in the hands of a machine. LAWS could have long term effects on the strategic cultures of states, we would be looking towards a world where state relations are shaped by AI. There is an ongoing debate on the international level on whether the use of autonomous weapons systems should be continued or discontinued. If continued, what level of human oversight is absolutely necessary. If discontinued, what implications would there be to face. The discussion basically comes down to the concept of “Keeping a Human in the Loop” . There has yet been noconsensus on the status of these weapons and their use in the modern warfare. We see this technology being used in present day in varying capacities, whether it be the Ukrainians intercepting Russian communications, Turkish forces allegedly launching a fully autonomous drone attack on Libya in March, 2020, or even the active use of loitering munitions in the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine conflict. In this ongoing debate, there are some states that are in favour of keeping a human in the loop but others not so much. The advancement in AI based LAWS has led to an arms race once again. There is just too much utility for states to ignore. Therefore, we do not see major powers give a directive against it openly even though UN-Secretary General has tried to find a common ground between them. There is a game of chicken going on between the states which will supposedly determine the victor of this race. The future of LAWS is now at a more critical point than ever, the powers that be need to set their priorities straight whether to live in a world where a simple error in programming could lead to a world war. Where the meanings of sovereignty, morality, ethics and the international landscape are shaped by the decisions made by machines or take calculated actions while we can control the fallout of this technology. There is a serious need for the international community to come to an agreement through formulation of binding treaties that balance innovation with human oversight. Actionable frameworks need to be put in place in order to make sure that the future of policy making is not algorithm driven and before we know it the negotiations are being done by robots with navy blue suits and bright red ties. Only through foresighted dialogue can the states come to a fruitful and acceptable arrangement as the biggest danger of LAWS is that they are likely to make decisions with no flexibility and their potential benefit is all the same. The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at [email protected] . Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Δ document.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() );As the man removed his mask for the final time and faced his reflection in the mirror, he was greeted not by the image of a defeated soul, but by the glimmer of hope and resilience in his eyes. Though his self-discipline challenge had come to an end, the lessons he had learned along the way would stay with him forever, serving as a reminder of the transformative power of self-awareness and self-acceptance.

Hong Kong Stock Market: Maogeping Surges 87% on Debut, Shows Strong Performance on First Day3. Using Gas Stoves for Heating: Using a gas stove for heating purposes can release carbon monoxide into the air. Gas stoves are designed for cooking and should not be used as a primary heat source.

Colombia's Marxist President Vows to Fight Trump on Retaking Panama Canal‘Overdue’ Lebanon ceasefire must bring lasting solution to crisis, says PM

Maogeping is known for its cutting-edge products and services that cater to a wide range of industries, including artificial intelligence, big data analytics, cloud computing, and blockchain technology. The company's strong focus on research and development, coupled with strategic partnerships and collaborations with key industry players, has positioned it as a market leader in the tech space.Arcane’s Season 2 received loud critical acclaim (like its first outing), but according to a new report, the series cost Riot Games so much that it fueled the company’s rushed exit from Hollywood. The beautiful League of Legends series was definitely intended for League fans, but Riot Games surely hoped that it would drive business back into the popular game (and Riot’s overall portfolio). The second season’s warm reception was also muffled somewhat by a degree of fan backlash claiming that Season 2 felt rushed , a complaint for which series creators subsequently apologized . A new report details Riot’s complex reaction to the series’ fate, as well as how and why Arcane forced a reexamination of the company’s growing Hollywood plans. A beautiful and wildly expensive series According to Bloomberg’s report , there was a lot at stake for Riot. The series was self-financed to ensure Arcane’s quality, which did result in a widely lauded set of seasons (including winning an Emmy for Outstanding Animated Program). At the same time, Riot spent about $250 million on the series’ two seasons. These costs are half-meliorated by the distribution with Netflix and, in China, Tencent, each paying $3 million per episode. Together, these payments recoup less than half the series’ cost. In the report, a Riot spokesperson commented that “Arcane was a success when we look across all our internal measures,” elaborating that the second season is “on track to be at least break-even for us financially.” Breaking even is a far cry from what Riot undoubtedly hoped. Related: Part of this lack of profitability has to do with issues in creating tie-in items for League. League of Legends producer Paul Bellezza admitted “We were really surprised with the success of season one,” and consequently admitted that’s “why we probably missed an opportunity to do some in-game activations around it.” While the pricey series may not ultimately lose money for Riot, the series won’t be moving ahead for Season 3, with creators explicitly noting that the two seasons told a concrete story. Meanwhile, in a year that started with 11% of Riot’s workers facing layoffs, the report indicates that Riot is giving signs of moving away from larger Hollywood plans and towards a renewed focus on its games. This is part of a general pull back from the company, which expanded its entertainment team in 2020, including adding Netflix alum Shauna Spenley with reported eyes on growing its connections to the entertainment industry. Spenley and others have since left, and its entertainment division has been reorganized, the company focusing on its core game properties: “For us, what’s most important is fostering long-term player engagement and retention,” a Riot spokesperson told Bloomberg. “Riot’s focus has always been on creating games and experiences that players want to enjoy for years, and Arcane is part of that larger vision.” That’s good news for League of Legends fans, and Riot is careful to avoid placing blame on Arcane (a series they widely praise, and may yet follow up with future adaptations ), but being on the hook for a record-setting amount of money that didn’t quite inflate their core business undoubtedly had an impact on their return to basics.

Word count: 443 wordsAs the world continues to grapple with its own challenges, it is crucial not to forget the plight of the Syrian people. The humanitarian crisis in Syria is not just a regional issue; it is a global humanitarian catastrophe that demands urgent attention and action. The international community must come together to provide the necessary support and assistance to the people of Syria, ensuring access to essential services and protection from violence.

The closure of Manson Market marks a significant milestone in the ongoing battle against cybercrime in Europe. It sends a strong message that illegal activities on the dark web will not go unpunished and that law enforcement agencies are committed to identifying, investigating, and prosecuting those responsible for perpetrating cybercrimes.

Do animals get jealous like people? Researchers say it's complicated December 12, 2024 University of California - Berkeley Using data from 23 studies of what psychologists call 'inequity aversion,' researchers combed through results of more than 60,000 observations involving 18 animal species. In what they said was the 'largest empirical investigation of non-human inequity aversion to date,' the team reconstructed data analyses and used a new metric that adds depth to the concept of fairness. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIN Email It's a question that has puzzled thinkers for centuries: Are we humans alone in our pursuit of fairness and the frustration we feel when others get what we want? In recent years, evolutionary psychologists have suggested that we're not all that special. Animals, from corvids to capuchin monkeys, express what humans might recognize as jealousy when, for example, they are passed over for a sought-after snack. Many argue this is evidence we are not alone in our aversion toward unfairness. But new research from the University of California, Berkeley, makes the case that humans might be unique after all. Using data from 23 studies of what psychologists call "inequity aversion," Berkeley researchers combed through results of more than 60,000 observations involving 18 animal species. In what they said was the "largest empirical investigation of non-human inequity aversion to date," the team reconstructed data analyses and used a new metric that adds depth to the concept of fairness. "We can't make the claim that animals experience jealousy based on this data," said Oded Ritov, a fourth-year Ph.D. candidate in UC Berkeley's Department of Psychology. "If there is an effect, it's very weak and might show up in very specific settings. "But it's nothing like what we see in humans in terms of our deep-seated sense of fairness." The meta-analysis was published Nov. 27 in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Ritov, the paper's first author, studies how human behaviors have evolved, how much of it is baked into our big brains and what is learned through our complicated cultures. He also researches non-human animals to better understand what makes humans special. Our sense of fairness in distributing resources may be a key reason we were able to build shelters, share food and develop more complex societies. To be sure, humans have differing perceptions of fairness. But core to the concept is what psychologists call "inequity aversion," a disinclination for the unequal distribution of resources and judgments on how things should be shared. Examples are all around us, as siblings or parents of young children can attest. When one child is given something nicer than the other, outbursts often follow. It's not just that the youngster didn't get a toy or treat; someone else did instead. This reaction shows aversion toward inequity. It's long been debated just how different that perception of fairness is for non-human animals. Primatologist Frans de Waal's landmark study and accompanying viral video of an endearing capuchin monkey lashing out made the case that such animals show an understanding of inequity aversion that's remarkably similar to that of human children. All was well and good when both monkeys were given a slice of cucumber. But when researchers gave one a grape, the cucumber-munching chimp seemed to grow jealous, flung the cucumber back at the researcher and rattled the cage wall in protest. De Waal and others said this and subsequent experiments supported the claim that humans are not alone in our sense of fairness. Similar studies on corvids, dogs and mice have likewise been reported to show inequity aversion. Ritov said that might be the "straightforward, and perhaps anthropomorphic, interpretation." But that doesn't mean it's the only one. He said many of these studies have been hampered by a replication crisis that has long plagued psychology and other disciplines. Findings might be compelling, but they're based on small sample sizes and are difficult to repeat, clouding their broader contributions to science. "We thought it'd be a valuable contribution to try to pull together as much data as we can on this question and see what kind of pattern emerges with the larger dataset," Ritov said. The pattern that emerged after rerunning the data with a new variable suggests the animals weren't displaying jealousy. They were actually disappointed after expecting a grape based on past research behavior. Follow-up studies elicited similar outrage in monkeys, even when the grapes were placed in an empty cage -- where there was no other monkey to be jealous of. "We think that the rejections are a form of social protest," Ritov said. "But what animals are protesting isn't receiving less than someone else. Rather, it seems like they're protesting the human not treating them as well as they could." Perhaps the reaction was never about inequity aversion, Ritov argues. It was about unmet expectations. And that's something that humans and non-human animals alike can relate to. Story Source: Materials provided by University of California - Berkeley . Original written by Jason Pohl. Note: Content may be edited for style and length. Journal Reference : Cite This Page :