Nope. Raising children to be moral and not kill people is good. Stopping people (including by force) from being murderers is good.

Restrict AI the way you would if it were human

"Your kids should take one for society" is an atrocious pitch.

"Your kids should be stuck with people who ruin their lives because criminals are" is also terrible.

The correct response is moving problem kids to problem schools, then to disciplinary schools, and if necessary to juvy.

Put people where they belong, with the people they belong with.

Otherwise the people stuck with the trash will leave (and maybe that's okay in the end)

Most problem kids can be rehabilitated with some investment of time in a positive, welcoming environment though. Not so much if you stick them in prison school. They’ll just live up to your expectations in that case.

Most of the time, there's no rehabilitation. These kids just ruin some other kids' lives.

Then the problem is there is no rehabilitation isn’t it.

It’s not like those kids were born genetically terrible.

Well no, the environment is probably easier to deal with than our bodies, and we get replaced gen by gen.

The brain is insanely energy efficient, this is not the same as intelligence efficient

What if an app allows landlords to easily coordinate on prices?

The moment one of them had their apartment left empty they would fold and drop their price rather than leave it vacant and take a loss.

That isn't what's happened with the RealPage case. Landlords are keeping properties vacant for months at a time under the promise that it will boost their long term profits.

The higher the margins, the more wealthy people will want to build houses to rent them out.

At some number of vacant houses the algorithm changes

This is not a serious perspective.

Indeed https://gaza-patterns-harm.airwars.org/

A less quackish way to say the same thing is that a scientific paradigm tells people along which lines to look for answers. Looking at areas the paradigm doesn't recommend are generally not worthwhile, but occasionally you get something important, which doesn't fit in the current paradigm but will eventually help form the new paradigm.

A good heuristic could be "seems like a solid scientist in general, but this niche where he was a top level researcher led him to a split with the main stream" vs "consistently takes anti-mainstream views and has no contributions within the paradigm "

You could skip to a better heuristic: they (provably) did a thing that the mainstream people said was impossible. That other stuff is part of the blind spot.

Well that's it then, we're gonna die

How could anything be positively predicted by gender? More seriously, selection effects should be much stronger than gender, age and ethnicity, and yet there should still be some correlation in one direction or another, wish there were power and confidence values given

There are natural tendencies based on gender. That said, they tend to overlap between the two, but become more extreme at the edges of a given bell curve.

For example, in strength, if you take an equal group of men and women, then half of all men are likely to be stronger than all women and half of all women are likely to be weaker than all men in the group. Meaning half intermingle and overlap.

The same is true for some psychological traits. These aren't absolutes though. I don't think it should generally be a consideration for a given position myself, but there are absolute differences in most cases.

I have found women to be better managers than men overall, just my experience but it has been across several different employers. I am male, BTW.

You mean things like grip strength? Or even personality traits like aggressiveness? A ton of things correlate with a specific gender.