I don't think Google should be required to provide anonymized search data to rivals. Firstly, that's effectively their intellectual property.

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. I'm sure the others will do something transformative with the data.

Grabbing and giving back is a really funny way of looking at copying something. Pay for a copy or don't.

Try explaining to a five year old that the balloon animal you gave them is not free if they can make modifications and not share them back with you.

Which past... before it became a convenient stick to bash the scary AI with, nobody gave a crap about copyrighted works or intellectual property rights in general around here for damned sure, not ever.

All of a sudden everyone is a digital Karen crying "you need to pay for that" while perched on top their horde of pirated movies, music and audio books. Hey we should only have to pay for stuff if we really like it and the seller provides terms we like, and not if we weren't going to buy it anyway. Right .... isn't that how it goes? Please don't make me roll my eyes harder, this hurts.

... dominating the market ... is part of your definition of free?

This is exactly what companies like PwC come in and do. The AI just did it faster.

Bullshit. if they are that fucking good then they should also be able to patch it just as fast. Its a zero sum game. Fuck off with your bullshit too.

Your shitty chat bot is not a national security risk.

Where in the article does it make that claim?

If you're talking about the implication in the headline, I took it as a brag about having a very large pipeline to mint new billionaires, possibly the largest. As in it doesn't matter. They're not wrong.

From the other end, being the destination for a bunch of rich people moving in doesn't really mean shit. My experience from the New England area is that being the place a bunch of rich people from out of state move to just fucks with property taxes and home prices. I mean they're moving there to get away from where they made their money keep more of what they have to themselves, that's sort of the point. I just don't think that's a controversial viewpoint from a place where rich people like to retire to, no matter what side of the aisle you're on.

The other party will promptly run on undoing it again. Is there a joke in there I'm missing, because it's really pretty sad.

Affordable Care Act required everyone working that can afford it to pay for health insurance, which is one way to lower insurance premiums - everyone pays in instead of waiting till something is wrong or they're older. Republicans gutted that part, but left in the parts that required dependent coverage for young adult children and maternity and prenatal care, preexisting conditions etc. That's good and all, but you still need healthy people paying in, insurance doesn't work if you wait until you need it to buy it. Republicans still want to keep the insurance middleman, but .. they don't really have any sort of plan past that, so they just fucked with ACA where they could, and stopped talking about it after .. how long has it been? I'm not sure what the plan is now, save money you poors, you're on your own? Bragging about the best healthcare in the world, well, shouldn't that be more expensive almost by definition then, so I guess the lower classes being unable to afford it was part of the plan all along? That's a sick joke man.

Linus has completed his career migration to full time manager.

The whole country's GDP growth last year was basically carried by AI. So...

That's not a joke.

3 million years of evolution fucktard

"I know what it feels like to leave id while id goes on. It's a strange and painful thing to step away "

They aren't "stepping away" John. They are being kicked to the fucking curb