Some investor pointed this out a while ago, and it's worth looking into. If you're investing in EFTs on US indices, chances are you are exposed to the risk of the AI bubble collapsing.

From OpenAI's engineers' perspective, the purpose of ChatGPT is to write things that appear to be similar to what humans have written, or would write. The ethics of this perspective are that OpenAI should have no liability. ChatGPT is for novelty purposes only, and it's as dangerous as Magic 8 Ball.

From a different perspective (including, possibly, OpenAI's own marketing team's perspective), the purpose of ChatGPT is to help solve problems, give people advice, etc. The ethics of this perspective are that OpenAI should be liable for what it "says." ChatGPT is more dangerous than Magic 8 Ball.

But from a user's perspective, the purpose of ChatGPT is whatever you want it to be. The ethics of this perspective are that OpenAI's liability is hard to determine, therefore, this perspective is wrong and reality should be shoe-horned into one of the above perspectives. ;-) Well, ok, I guess ChatGPT is about as dangerous as a BASIC interpreter or a screwdriver or a rock or a 30 JuggaloWatt mining phaser, which can be anywhere from not-dangerous-at-all to hey-you-just-murdered-ten-thousand-nuns-and-orphans. Since this is the hardest case to analyze, of course we're going to go this way.

Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are quire safe then.

I use one of the large banks named in this article.

Last weekend I had a question about a service, it's something I already use, I just needed one piece of information about it.

Their web "help" was just stone stupid - asked a formulaic question, then offered the same set of options as found at the top of the page for the service in questions. I got curious and poked around, it was literally nothing but a "no matter what question give one of half a dozen links" and then ask if the user was satisfied.

I tried Google. It's utterly broken now, so no joy there. I will admit the bank provides the service in question, beyond that it's a different flavor of dumb.

Perplexity has largely replaced Google for me, but no joy on this one. It offered a lot of well stated, but utterly irrelevant advice, given my question.

I finally called a friend who uses the same bank and same service, they walked me through it.

The sad thing here? This is a HUGE bank, they could afford to do this job right, and 98% of it WOULD work with bots. I guess they laid off the people who can, ya know, actually DO stuff, and we get this late 20th century IVR style "service" despite their massive spend on AI.

Corporate America's race to replace humans with AI is going to backlash. Why engage with gamey agents, when you can deploy your own, and wait for the desired result?

This process is going to repeat, like the Europeans arriving in the Americas, until all the humans are gone, and there's nothing left but bots that do an increasingly good job of acting like us. There will be little reservations, see the Fediverse for an example, where actual humans congregate. There will not be corporate friendly global flat spaces like Facebook and Twitter, there will be neighborhoods.

Much like the natives of the 16th century, we are going to lose people along the way. There are those whose brains are so warped by the internet already that they will simply remain entangled in the increasing unreality. There's even an Amazon series about this - The Feed is pretty well done, and it chronicles what happens to society as it (The Feed) takes over.

The same thing will happen economically, a return to local dealing, but it's going to partial and MUCH more painful.

Not really. The 2x $1000 or so I spent on targeted ad campaigns have been worth it. If they weren't targeted, it would be far less effective; there's quite a few articles pointing out that targeted ads have a far higher click-through rate, and a higher conversion rate as well. Without targeting, my ad budget might still be $2000 but I wouldn't be spending it.

That's not going to happen. The global advertising market is approaching a $1 trillion dollar value annually, and personalized ads have driven a lot of that growth. Personalized ads make it possible to zoom in on your target demographic more precisely, so you're not paying for impressions going to the wrong target group. It made advertising affordable to people who could not have justified the cost before. Hell I've ran a few global online ad campaigns for an app I wrote as a hobby project.

No, they'll not going to kill the goose that lays those particular golden eggs.

"applying the ban only to the use of personal data to set higher prices without establishing a baseline or standard price".
So you set very high baseline prices, then use personal data to offer varying discounts. That does look like a loophole.

How about "No dynamic prices or discounts based on personal or biometric data are allowed"? Put in an exemption to offer a discount to certain classes (student or vet discounts, discounts for seniors)
In the past dynamic prices (discounts) were used to increase turnover: get new customers in the door with offers, keep them coming back with loyalty programs, and have them buy more with volume discounts. Now, it is used to extract the maximum amount of cash from every customer. It seems that the MBAs who came up with this have fully embraced the first tenet of communism: from each according to their ability.
"How much is this item?"
- "How much do you have?"

What, you mean you're not convinced to grab the no-name alpha-release "privacy browser" that cripples yourself if you don't let them MITM you?

It wasn't that hard - Netscape came on floppies, too.

Tim Cook had a brilliant career, but he had to embarras himself by sucking up to the orange utan.

Enjoy your retirement TIm Apple, you nauseating man.

The President is the closest of all elected officials to the People

No, the president is elected by the states. Members of Congress are elected by the people.

Some have voiced an opinion that the president should be elected by the people, but so far, we have not yet amended the constitution to permit that.

I'm not so sure that those who have studied in those fields are much better. These notions sound no worse than some of the ideas being bandied about in places like the WEF. They sound like stoner friends sitting around in a bar, having beers and philosophizing about how they are going to fix the world, except these guys have the riches or/and the political clout to actually try and bring some of that about. Either way, it's people who think they know better, governing over people rather than for them.

With this attitude, we are never getting our flying cars. I'm starting to think The Jetsons was fiction.

"More human than human" is our motto.