That's why it needs to be a site run by a union of publishing companies, with individual sub-sites for each of the members. This probably couldn't work for news, but most publishing is more durable. Think of it as a cross between Google and Amazon, except the corporation would not be run for profit of the corporation, but for profit of the participating companies.

I think a better answer would be for a (publishing) industry group to put up it's own site. Block Google from every page except the entry. The purpose of the site needs to be to link to the publications of the members of the group, and to act as a filter so that those not desired can be refused access.

robots.txt was a great idea as long as nearly everyone was polite and paid attention to it, but now there appears to be the need of an enforcement mechanism, probably with graded access permissions.

Perhaps, and perhaps not. But clearly laws cause crime.

Be aware that airplanes bound for Canada occasionally land at US airports before arriving at their destination. This has in the past occasionally lead to problems.

To be fair, when I checked a few decades ago more wars had started under Democrat presidents than under Republican presidents. OTOH, I'm not sure what the sources I looked at called a war. We haven't been in an official war since WWII.

You missed the point. Small enough pieces are already understandable. But... Well... It's like the problem with global variables, a few are really useful, but when they multiply the code becomes unintelligible. There are too many interactions.

Whether we know how they work or not depends on how closely you look. If you look closely enough, every single decision is understandable. But it's so complex that nobody understands the ensemble. Even ordinary programs are sort of this way. The Obfuscated C Contest is just an extreme outlier, but any really large chunk of code written by somebody else (or by you over the last few years ... and not all at once) can be difficult to understand. As it gets bigger, and has more patches, the problem gets worse. These things are at an extreme edge of this problem. But every small enough piece of them can be understood...at least by somebody.

In this context inappropriate use of AI is a use that gets unchecked erroneous outputs that you care about or it more expensive than you want to pay.

OK, many people don't know how to use it yet.

AI is such a versatile tool that people keep trying to use it in inappropriate ways/places. Again, like computers in the 1960's & 1970's. I suspect that we're still at the point where most attempts will fail (some horribly), but some will be REALLY successful.

N.B.: Computers didn't become largely successful until structured programming and commodity software took over large parts of the market. That greatly reduced the errors. What's the equivalent for AI? We won't know until after robots become common. (LLMs are just touching the edge of what AIs can do.)

It is (or at least can be), among other things, a good search engine.

The problem is that people don't know how to use it yet. EXPECT most attempts to fail. Most early attempts to use computers failed.

Of course, with AI the problem's a bit worse because it keeps changing so rapidly. Currently the rule of thumb is "You can train an AI do do a good job if it's easy to verify that a proposed solution is correct.",

You already acknowledged the catch when you said "Or, at least, any new ones.". Small groups are really much more interested in the kind that were useful in WW I, because those are easier to make. Doing development for new weapons is dangerous to the developer.

If IQ were valid, it wouldn't be particularly low. Unfortunately, it's sensitive to culture and education, so you are probably right. But don't confuse it with potential intelligence. IQ is basically a measure of how well you could do in school with reasonable effort, so if you didn't pay attention last year, your IQ is lower.

That said, intelligence *is* real. It's just that IQ is a really bad measure of it.

Called standard by who? I guess we shouldn't call the Imperial units, though. But I've *never* heard them called "standard" before.

I really doubt that it's the largest single market. I suspect that's China. The US and India are probably up there in the running too.