There's going to be that sort of thing from some actors, yes, but I expect most advertisers just to use the front door and pay OAI and competitors for placement.

They're going to sell it, the question is what sort of "tiers" of influence there will be, and who will get them - pushing one brand of phones over another is different than if someone wants to change what the robot says about a historical figure, say, and that's where things get very interesting.

The study does note that it's not controlling for this factor and recommends social media be looked at more closely. The question I suppose would be , is it Fortnite or Facebook (or whatever it is kids use now, Facebook has been considered "boomer" social media for some time now by the kids) responsible for this.

That said , your observation on Gramps cursing the TV is interesting. As a kid in the 70s and 80s, my father was so adamant the TV was bad for it, he sold the TV set. The question is, what's the difference between kids glued to TV sets and kids glued to screens.

... there could actually be some use cases.

"I'm looking for a ring-less shower curtain that is actually 72 inches high, *including* the built in "rings". *Not* one that is supposed to be equivalent to a 72" "standard" curtain with rings."

That kind of thing. IF it worked ...

Yeah, it turns out that when you don't grow anything yourself, and then you kidnap, rape, and murder your neighbors, it becomes hard to get food.

Also, when you put the people in charge who were responsible for all that, they seem to divert the food that is brought there for you away from you.

But don't worry, useful idiots (as Lenin called them) will blame your neighbors ...

Close. But no banana.

I once thought like you did. Then I thought : if you canâ(TM)t beat em, join em. So I got an MBA. A good MBA recognises value, profit being a good measure. But not the only measure.

No, the real problem is the Blackrocks, the Vangaurd investment funds, etc. The ones that probably have your pension savings. They have an incredible thirst. Growth or profits. Preferably both. Dollars or die.

I'm not really seeing a problem with AI-generated superheros, wisecracks, and explosions.

Nor how we will tell the difference ...

It wouldn't be cost-effective in China either were it not for state support.

There is no doubt that global free trade in commodities, in the absence of any government support, would be the most economically efficient thing to have. But China -- probably correctly -- identifies dependency on foreign supply chains for critical materials as a *security* issue. So they have indirect and direct subsidies, as well as state owned enterprises that operate on thin or even negative profit margins.

Since China does this kind of support on a scale nobody else does, China produces more rare earths than any other country, even though it is not particularly well endowed with deposits. This solves China's security problem with the reliability of the supply, but creates a security problem for other countries.

China thinks like Japan did before WW2, like empire building European countries did in the 1800s. Control over resources is a national security weapon, both for defense and offense.

The behavioral model you have isn't supported by data. When you raise the standard of living and food security of population, the fertility rate goes down. When you have nothing, children are economic assets whose labor can support the family. It's not a great option, but some people live in conditions where there are no good options.

I don't know what what means?

"If you are not embarrassed by the first version of your product, you've launched too late"

Reid Hoffman originally coined this sentence when discussing startup culture and the launch experience of LinkedIn.

This is the reality of the market. People will jump on the first service available, be it bad or otherwise. The competitor that release its stuff 1 year later has already lost the race.

So the bad technical decision makes market sense. You can either make money with fast crap or go bankrupt with a well engineered project.

You are confusing passing the test with complying with the law.

San Jose?

I will never understand the desire to drive an ornamental dumpster.

To control what you say, whom you worship, whom you fuck, your body, and who you can do business with.

Other than that, though, they are the REAL freedom fighters.

And next time one of these fascist freaks starts yammering about national security, remember that is also their reason why you need to pay more for peanut butter.

Yeah thats actually a worry. The sale of 6ghz to mobile carriers could have some troublesome implications for wifi. In theory it could be moved elsewhere but that'd reqire the FCC to release bandwidth to the public and it currently seems more interested in selling public bandwidth to telcos instead.

Not a lawyer, but UK law doesn't apply across the world.

No, but it does apply in the UK, and international law has always been clear that when you serve customers in a country, you do so under the laws of that country.

UK law does not apply to what is served to US customers. It applies to what is served to UK customers. And if you break UK laws, you pay UK penalties.

This has been the standard internationally since Dow Jones vs Gutnick 23 years ago (That was an australian lawsuit that settled how international juristiction works in defamation cases and has been largely adopted internationally as it was based on the US model of international juristiction).

Note also, both OFCOM thing, and Twitters violations in Australia are both related to websites (4chan and twitter) refusing to provide information to cops doing child porn investigations.

Thats what these companies are protecting. Nothing to do with politics. Its pedophiles, not politicians.