While you are correct in your description, the prevalence of PACS in the younger demographics would be insufficient for a notable change in test scores. Organ scarring detected by MRIs and histograms correlate to severity of disease, and would not impact the test-taking population in any meaningful way. The symptoms you describe are uncommon (especially in the below-49 crowd), and most of the individuals with those symptoms recovered 6-24 months after the acute phase.

So your argument in the AI vs human conflict is that the songs are the same?
But what about the scenario where the songs are not entirely the same? I am not a lawyer, so I don't know *how* different song NEW needs to be from song ORIGINAL to not count as infringement, but for the sake of the argument let us assume that the two are just different enough that a human author could not be sued for infringement.

How would the infringement scenario be different for a human author and an AI "author"? Because if the scenarios do not differ then the human vs AI conflict is a nothingburger, yes?

This is the part I can't get my head around. Everything we humans do derives from previous experiences. Most famous works of today can be clearly traced to earlier works (Harry Potter draws from D&D, Tolkien etc., which in turn draws from earlier works still, all the way back to 1000AD folklore and beyond). Why is it acceptable that humans build experiences from earlier works and use that to create something different? How is it different when an AI reads 1 million comic books and makes a new comic as opposed to a fleshy meatbag doing it? If it is the same as something that exists, sure. But that does not appear to be the argument. I can understand and appreciate the complexity of the situation as we adjust a system based entirely on human actors to accommodate AI, but the reasoning I have seen so far from the pro-human side is closer to shitposting than any substantive argument regarding *why* AI should not be allowed. If a human had made the comic in TFA, would that be okay?

Analytics said the same about Putin invading Ukraine without having the resources to do so successfully. Turns out that paranoid dictators do not always take the rational approach.

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN!

It doesn't do it well enough, alas.

I tried to get an AI to write my introduction on a paper. Got 12 paragraphs. I had to remove 8 of them from the start since they weren't useful at all, just vapid rambling. Of the four I retained, one turned out to be bogus (the dates were off), and two of them turned out to be meaningless once contemplated at any depth. The one paragraph left was too casual to be used, so I refactored that one into a single line, and added two citations to back it up.
In summation, 12 paragraphs from an AI could, with a little work, be turned into one useful line where I had to add citations on my own. Unlike a calculator, the AI was less efficient than doing things manually for me.

This is not a matter of programming, it's a matter of everything ever.
It applies to academia (the goal of academia is not science, it's publishing). Easily measured too - one paper, two papers...
It applies to public healthcare (you are no longer evaluated on treating patients well, you are evaluated on how many patients you "processed"). Easily measured - one patient two patients...
And on the list goes...

Kinsey rants about quantifying programming, when the real deal is that *no* job can be quantified. A cashier that quickly handles customers is not necessarily better than a cashier that chats with every customer. Some customers want to be done quickly, others want a personal touch and a kind word. Kinsey has gone too far up their own collective ass.
I can tell you that I would *much* rather have a slow doctor that took his time with me rather than the efficient one that ran through patients; that's the opposite of what Kinsey would quantify as "productive". I would also prefer the slow programmer that took his time to write things properly as compared to the lightning programmer that submitted his entire week's workload in half a day**.

**depending on code quality of course, but I think you know where I'm going with this.

"More output per worker is how living standards improve."

That doesn't sound right. Do employees no longer count for living standard measures? Are only C-levels and up considered human in America now?

That would explain the ads I'm getting.

"Are you feeling lonely? Meet Russian spies in your area tonight!"

"Hey handsome, I'm not looking for love, I'm looking to sell yellow cake uranium right now!"

Why is the FTC allowed to settle? Doesn't that violate the purpose of a judicial enforcer? They aren't there to scrounge up a few dollars, they are there to enforce the rules, which cannot be done without a ruling. How can corporations be encouraged to follow the rules if they make more money risk-free when they don't?

This is a bit annoying.
1. It's not a three-parent baby if they swap the mitochondrial DNA since that isn't human DNA, it's a separate set for the mitochondria that "live" inside our cells. It's a factory default baby with a set of updated genes for the factory worker mitochondria.
2. Genes are not the same size, hence the "99.8% DNA from parents" is probably a wrong number (ignoring that it's mitochondrial).

But it is adding value - just not for the consumer. Microsoft has been clear since Windows 10 that it is the ad business they consider their customers, not the consumers.

Why wouldn't they? If they get slapped with a few million in settlement and make 10x that in traffic surges, it makes sense, doesn't it?

The people at FTC/DOJ want to work at MS and make the big bucks someday too, so it behooves them to play ball.

This is not a free speech issue as the part was settle some time ago.
It's a moralistic imperative issue, with a heavy dose of "I know better than you (because God told me so)".

Never Smell Your Footwear