Krombiception, of course.

…you do have krombiception, don’t you?

“Not do anything useful” would be more accurate than “do nothing”. But that’s just my tl;dr.

[…] the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding their devastating consequences.

The United States is concerned that the concept of “food sovereignty” could justify protectionism or other restrictive import or export policies […]

We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a “right to food,” which we do not recognize and has no definition in international law.

https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-of-the-third-committee-adoption-of-the-right-to-food-resolution/

tl;dr:

1. The USA doesn’t think the resolution actually does anything useful, even if it supports the intention
2. The USA, the largest exporter of food, is concerned how the resolution might impact food exports
3. The USA doesn’t recognize the imposition of legal obligations to act outside of its own territory

But the resolution passed anyway, which is why world hunger has disappeared.

They made a movie that dramatized the accidents really well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh89h8FxNhQ

Reminds me of the old trick on HTML forms where you use CSS to make one of the form fields invisible to humans and reject any submission that filled in that field.

Where is GoldenEye?

Man it sure is crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide.

The problem is that an AI built to maximize paperclips might conclude that converting the planet to paperclips is an acceptable cost of maximizing paperclip production. It might understand why humans think it’s bad to convert the planet, but disagree. It would need to be explicitly programmed to prioritize human life over paperclips.

otherwise we would just switch it off

If it were super-intelligent, it could probably trick us into leaving it turned on.

A paperclip maximizer driven by self-preservation? What could possiblie go wrong?

Pirate King: HE DID?!? … oh… oh, yes so he did… I was there.

https://archive.org/download/OTRR_X_Minus_One_Singles

Who grades the test? Who judges the competition?

Yes

Sorry, I lost the world’s smallest violin. This is the best I can do: 🖕

No, it’s “re” like the subject of an email. “Re: diculous”

30 years ago my music teacher told me that in Chinese-language singing it’s the consonants that are sustained.

Nice try, Javert.

Are there examples of censorship or prior restraint you’d like to highlight?