States that have nuclear weapons are generally less able to successfully make compellent threats than states that do not.  Citation: https://uva.theopenscholar.com/todd-sechser/publications/militarized-compellent-threats-1918%E2%80%932001

The USA was the dominant industrial power in the post-war world, was this obvious and massive advantage 'extremely' enhanced by its' possession of nuclear weapons?  As a reminder, these weapons were not decisive (or even useful) in any of the wars the USA actually fought, the USA has been repeatedly and continuously challenged by non-nuclear regional powers.

Sure, AI might provide an extreme advantage, but I'm not clear on why nuclear weapons do.

What extreme advantages were those?  What nuclear age conquests are comparable to the era immediately before?

Food companies are adding sesame (an allergen for some) to food in order to not be held responsible for it not containing sesame.  Alloxan is used to whiten dough https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0733521017302898 for the it's false comment.  And is also used to induce diabetes in the lab  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0024320502019185 RoundUp is in nearly everything.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs#Significant_withdrawals plenty of things keep getting added to this list.

We have never made a safe human.  CogEms would be safer than humans though because they won't unionize and can be flipped off when no longer required.

Edit: sources added for the x commenter.

There are analogies here in pollution.  Some countries force industry to post bonds for damage to the local environment.  This is a new innovation that may be working.

The reason the superfund exists in the US is because liability for pollution can be so severe that a company would simply cease to operate, and the mess would not be cleaned up.

In practice, when it comes to taking environmental risks, better to burn the train cars of vinyl chloride, creating a catastrophe too expensive for anyone to clean up or even comprehend than to allow a few gallons to leak, creating an expensive accident that you can actually afford.

Based on your recent post here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/55rc6LJcqRmyaEr9T/please-stop-publishing-ideas-insights-research-about-ai

Can I mark you down as in favor of AI related NDAs?  In your ideal world, would a perfect solution be for a single large company to hire all the capable AI researchers, give them aggressive non disclosure and non compete agreements, then shut down every part of the company except the legal department that enforces the agreements?

Thankfully, the Chinese seem to have figured out how to thread this needle: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/healthcare/chinese-scientists-develop-cure-for-diabetes-insulin-patient-becomes-medicine-free-in-just-3-months/articleshow/110466659.cms?from=mdr

Edit: paper here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-024-00662-3

A lot of AI safety seems to assume that humans are safer than they are, and that producing software that operates within a specification is harder than it is.  It's nice to see this paper moving towards integrating actual safety analysis (the remark about collapsing bridges was a breath of fresh air), instead of general demands that 'the AI always do as humans say'!

A human intelligence placed in charge of a nation state can kill 7 logs of humans and still be remembered heroically.  An AI system placed in charge of a utopian reshaping of the society of a major country with a 'keep the deaths within 6 logs' guideline that it can actually stay within would be an improvement on the status quo.

If safety people are saying 'we cant build AI systems that could make people feel bad, and we definitely can't build systems that kill people' their demand for perfection is in conflict with improvement.*

I suspect that major AI alignment failure will come from 'we put the human in charge, and human error led to the model doing bad'.  The industrial/aviation safety community now rightly views 'pilot error' as a lazy way of ending an analysis and avoiding making the engineering changes to the system that the accident conditions demand.

*edit: imagine if the 'airplane safety' community had developed in 1905 (soon humans will be flying in planes!) and had resembled "AI safety"  Not one human can be risked!  No making planes that can carry bombs!  The people who said pregnant women shouldn't ride trains because the baby will fly out of their bodies were wrong there, but keep them off the planes!

November 17 to May 16 is 180 days.

Pay periods often end on the 15th and end of the month, though at that level, I doubt that's relevant.