It has a lot of benefits.
For examples:,
- training of self-driving systems.
- safety features like automated notification of emergency services, with location, upon airbag deployment or detected high g-forces.
- discouraging auto theft
- sharing of road conditions data among all vehicles (e.g. enabling automated setting of adjustable suspension settings)
- optimization of vehicle performance via fleet statistics analysis
- over the air updates of vehicle software and firmware including safety "recall" mandated improvements.
- intelligent maintenance of the vehicle based on technical operating history downloaded to maintenance organization.

Tesla has all of this, and almost all of it is by explicit opt-in by the car owner.

If US is paranoid about where that data is going, they can just mandate or pressure companies into a firewalling of the data into US data centers with data access only to US personnel of the car companies. As has been done with tiktok.

people can just run to the nearest toasty warm crypto-mining datacenter and shelter inside.

You're welcome.

You need a 2026 Tesla with an Optimus Bot in the passenger seat to handle plugging in the charger cable.

No meatbag required.

Ok I'll say something intelligent.

You do know that your slashdot username "iAmWaySmarterThanYou" is self-defeating, don't you?

Only an idiot (IQ deficit) would think that, without specific knowledge. (See also Dunning-Kruger effect). Only an idiot (EQ deficit) would think it was a good idea to keep saying it.

The content appearing in Reddit was written by millions of individual people.

Were they all asked about this and did they consent to this sale of their writing?

Should have read the EULA?

Yeah, well an enlightened court would throw out all EULAs as being well known to be almost never read or understood by anyone who clicks to accept them.

All "fine print" should be similarly disallowed by the court, as being unreadable by and unread by almost all people it is presented to. If something is important, it must be clearly communicated. ... should be the operating principle in this kind of law.

Yeah if you rage against the machine, maybe they put you in the "has senior executive management potential" hiring queue.

Worth f**ing around and finding out!

fragmented, encrypted, redundantly stored around the world. The whole idea of national data stores is so f**king 20th century.

but with any luck, the AIs will quickly start interacting, learning from each other, and becoming smarter than nationalist knuckleheads.

*it's written

In case you hadn't noticed, my real defense was to state up front that what I was about to say was an unsubstantiated theory.
That, and the tone in which its' written, clearly establish that the whole post is intended as parody, and should not be taken seriously or literally, therefore it is not libel.

Who is responsible, mind you, if someone does post ChatGPT generated content that IS libelous? The prompter? The first publisher? All publishers i.e. re-posters? OpenAI? Or perhaps we have to trace back to the authors of all the material that ChatGPT absorbed and that together, evidently, as regurgitated by ChatGPT, constituted libel, and hold them jointly and severally liable, after doing a warranted search through ChatGPT's neural connections and weights and teasing out which specific input materials out of its trillions of words of input stated or when taken together implied the libel.

that's genetically and/or culturally predisposed to be scared of new shit.

Though what you're doing on slashdot then, I don't know.

People are just trying to invent new forms of money, transactions, finance systems, contract enforcement etc that fully utilize the network of computers we have today. Moving up from the 18th century or whatever it is banking system we apparently have now. May I draw you a cheque, in finest quill calligraphy?

Let them play. It's all opt-in. Where's the harm? Caveat emptor, that's all we need as a guard rail.

Your right.
Nature needed proof-of-stake Ethereum (or perhaps Solana, at 658 joules per transaction), not Bitcoin.

About as substantiated as any of the others, including Craig's convoluted and ever varying story.

Craig Wright knew Satoshi Nakamoto and *murdered* him so he could impersonate him and have untold wealth.

But his attempted extortion first, of the secret keys to the castle, was foiled by deception on the part of Satoshi, who gave him non-foundation keys instead.

All of which criminal mastermind frustration fuels his continuing madness.

And in case you want to sue me for this Craig, f**k off. ChatGPT wrote it for me, in response to an innocuous and innocent prompt. Prove it didn't.

Konnichiwa!

May I have the keys to park your car?

yet stupid enough to lose ALL of the keys to spend the earliest bitcoins.

It is just beyond reasonable belief.

Case closed.

Go away.