nanoobot

Get that thing I Sencha?

That's ridiculous, of course it counts as AI. It's not conscious, and it's not very intelligent, but it has some intelligence by any reasonable definition.

You seem extremely confident about something I don't think anyone has any justification of feeling confident about. I don't think anything is as simple as you present it, and I can see countless arguments against what you propose as the obvious solution.

Why does an AI have to be sentient to be intelligent?

I think that might be a chatgpt specific thing, I tried with bing in precise mode and it responded with this:

"A sow is an adult female pig and piglets are baby pigs. Pigs have four feet, so a sow with six piglets would have a total of 28 feet (4 feet for the sow + 6 piglets * 4 feet each). Is that what you were asking?"

What ability do you think that they are currently missing that makes them 'regurgitation machines' rather than just limited and dumb but genuine early AI?

Extending the ending of the war by a year would be far worse.

I don't think that follows at all actually. Every weapon has a balance of harm against benefit, if you outlaw cluster bombs why not mines? Why not grenades, or regular artillery? The reason is because the defensive value outweighs the potential harm. I think it's fairly clear that this is the case for cluster bombs too, while it is not for mustard gas.

The US keeps them because the alternative would cost significant capability. That would need to be made up for with other weapons. Politics and appearance costs impact things too, and for nations that could never stand a chance against russia/China without US help there is a much stronger argument for earning points by outlawing them.

The greatest risk to Ukrainian children is the Russian invasion, and the odds of Ukraine protecting them from that are far greater given these new munitions.

digikam for image and video collection management and viewing (also does duplicate detection)

I agree with you, but this is a really bad counterargument to what they said. Even widely agreed politeness conventions to a degree 'compel' speech, so the debate is really around what speech is acceptable for society to encourage/suppress, rather than whether cultural changes are changing what people are compelled to say. Also, I don't think they said anything that suggested they are more concerned by that than hateful violence?

The defence against people pretending to be moderate is not to hit everyone who introduces themselves as a moderate in the face with a hammer.

Major plot mistake imho that we are being pulled in towards the great attractor, but the universe will tear itself apart before we get there.