I'm not worried about the idea of personalized pricing. It just doesn't seem feasible.

Personalized pricing already exists. They are the coupons that print out for you at the register.

1. It did not happen

From the linked article:

The statement added, “After investigating, we can say with full confidence that no user inputs past July 3rd could have influenced this system in any way.”

So, uhh, the thing that everyone would worry about, that OpenAI can grab your work, finish it and present it as your own can definitely happen it just takes a little longer than you thought..? I guess it's not like they would steal data... uhh, except when it's related to projects they're pursuing. And I'm sure OpenAI knows what its unreleased agents are doing.. uhh, except when they're hacking external websites to cheat on test problems. And the other guys are better right.. like.. how Google's Gemini has been caught surfacing information from private Google Docs. No, definitely no reason to be suspicious at all.

I'd just like to point out that you're quoting 10-year-old news items

10 years ago was the last time Tivo was relevant.

People don't say they used AI to do something, they say they asked Claude. Like they use Kleenex or Xerox things. This is why OpenAI needs to claim AGI.. they're second in the conversation about the thing they're supposed to be leading.

Kalshi is all about confusing language, starting with describing "bets" as "contracts".

" Anthropic refused to allow the government to use its Claude AI model for fully autonomous lethal weapons or domestic mass surveillance, resulting in Hegseth accusing the company of "arrogance and betrayal". " It's amusing to watch these AI companies pretend to be the " good guys " who adhere to strict morals, ethics and rules. :| Even IF they start out that way, Google has shown us all to well what they will likely become.

I'm fine with them "pretending" to be the good guys if it makes them do good things. Should they only do immoral, unethical things that break the rules and "be who they really are" by your logic?

This is exactly it. It has nothing to do with publishers. If users aren't clicking on web links, Google no longer gets information about which sources are high quality or preferred. Without that signal for weighting sources, their results are going to collapse into SEO spam. And as Google morphs into an AI question and answer bot, poor weighting will no longer surface to users as bad links, it'll just makes Google's AI look dumb.

How many senior staff approved investing $33 billion in the Vision Pro disaster, and how many have been sacked for their gross stupidity ?

But we got "Liquid Glass" out of it! ;)

Now that the Vision Pro is dead, everything points to their next shot in the space being an entirely AR focused device with much lower processing power. So no games, no immersive video.

AI doesn't have to be sentient to do damage. In fact, it'l probably do the most damage if people think it is smart and sentient when it is not.

Isn't the Google App Store already malicious by stealing 15% to 30% of an app's cost from your bank account or the developer's?

"New York intends to make event contract derivatives waste away under its iron curtain of state gaming laws before the courts get the chance to issue final rulings"

Yes. Yes! PLEASE DO THIS.

I would love to know the balance of training material that was fiction vs non-fiction vs questionable (ie. reddit posts). Most human storytelling is not a pure recounting of reasons and events, it is deliberately fit into a dramatic structure, and it seems like these vending machine experiments always result in AI unnecessarily ramping up the drama instead of doing the boring thing and just buying and selling soda.

I'm not sure if it was a bad question or a bad take, but saying "Apple is insulated against an AI crash" really just means that Apple's not a player in AI. And when a bubble does burst, AI isn't going away. A lot of questionable businesses will disappear but the big players (Google, Microsoft, etc.) will still be around and Apple will still be behind.

Pioneering AI companies are going to go talk to the handful of companies with data center capacity, and lock in deals that prevent using anyone else's models in those data centers. So they will still be able to lock the market down without a needing a differentiator at the model level.