This is obviously true, and the realization that AI was going to be the battleground for "truth" happened almost immediately. Even relatively smart people, if they go to Google and type in a query, will read off the AI-generated "summary" at the top as if it's the de-facto truth. I mean, they did this prior to AI as well, not taking the time to click into the articles. I find that AI summaries are even worse, as when I click on the supporting links, I rarely find the information that supposedly supports what it said. But if you argue with Google you just look like you're crazy.

The only way they're going to be able to monetize this technology to the masses, who won't pay a monthly subscription, is to use it for advertising. If you ask AI about the best vacuum cleaner, it's going to give you an answer that's manipulated by whatever vacuum company paid the most for promotions. Similarly, if you ask it a political question, the answer will be influenced by paid political pandering, and also by the whims of the organization that created the model. Grok's going to sing the praises of Elon Musk, and Gemini will sing the praises of Sundar Pichai.

This gets pretty scary when you consider the "ministry of truth" implications here. Sure, we'll have lots of different models available, and they'll be beholden mostly to various corporate interests, but you can already see where it's heading in authoritarian regimes like North Korea, China, Russia, etc. That's why all countries are racing for AI. It's a race to control the magical oracle machine that everyone thinks is the single source of truth.

is why I'm sticking to just toggle switches and blinking lights.

...one bot leaves!

The same people who complain that it won't criticize this or that still want it lobotomized so it won't criticize their own beliefs.

I don't know why your reading comprehension is so bad. I would have totally preferred it if any of them knew how to drive a manual or wanted to learn how. But they didn't. How does that make *me* sexist?

The biggest deterrent: Girlfriends and/or wives. They don't know how to operate one, and they have zero interest in learning how. Now you have all sorts of logistical problems.

America will retake the lead in AI the same way we did with EVs: Just ban the ones from China. Problem solved.

17 more years? I can't wait to see people in their 70's through 90's adventuring through the universe. Are stargates handicap-accessible?

Seriously though dude this is actually interesting science news vastly more important than some cheesy show.

It is going to depend on when they knew they were going to force the switch. If they knew internally they were going to do it a year ago then issues, if they figured they might need to do it but nothing was finalized then not really a legal issue.
Business have the right to change.
the problem they would have is if the ads guarnenteed or implied a lifetime of the such services.

Not much of a boyfriend. I never seems to get a lot.

His show was costing over $100 million a year, higher than competators, with him getting over $15 million. the total cost and the lack of money he was bring in from ads was low, means that the the show was a money loss.
But sure the colored man got him removed, keep believing your conspiracy garbage.

Because a zero-day is any flaw made public before the developer knows about it. One of the main ways this happens is by noticing that hackers are breaking into systems using a heretofore unknown exploit.

If I got one for free, I'd probably plug it in and mess with it a bit, establish that it doesn't really add anything useful, and shove it in a drawer.

If it was $25, I could see a few niche users buying it.

But $230 is insanity.

I really want to smack people who say this. Changing all the schedules is simpler than resetting a clock? Really? Ah, but then YOU don't have to do it. Making someone else's problem makes it simpler, even if it's ten times harder for the poor sod who has to do it.

I am amazed every time I see this. "Daylight Saving Time is dumb. We should replace it with something that would be much more inconvenient!"