100% agreed.

Right. I was thinking maybe with a scannable QR code content identifier, or a verifiable watermark. One that only 'you' can create for the content. And which people can trace back to 'you.' Like private/public key pairs. Except user friendly.

I think we diverge here, but possibly because we're thinking of credentials differently. If credentials allow me to trace back the name/etc. of the entity behind them, then, sure, corporations can have one too. One per entity. I can choose to react differently to corporate credentials than to personal ones.

A big question: who hands out the credentials? Do they do identity confirmation? The picture gets murky for me here.

Last paragraph in the article:

Way to bury the lead. Company with a history of anti-competitive practices sues competitor. News at 11.

PS. For what it's worth, Amazon's point that Perplexity inadvertently messes up Amazon's contracts with advertisers "who pay only for legitimate human impressions" does seem interesting. I guess they're inadvertently over-billing their advertisers. I'll be curious to see how this develops.

Thank you! +1 if I could. I did know of Po-Shen Loh, but only as the US IMO coach. The extra dimensions to him that I could glean from the video are awesome.

[...] without the burden of understanding. Reality will provide feedback shortly." This phrase is on a sticker in my office. (Look it up, there's a cute sloth on the sticker too.)

I'm currently teaching proof-based math to college freshmen. In the honors track. My syllabus does not disallow the use of AI because I haven't been able to wrap my head around how to best do that yet. Students end up with homework scores with averages in the very high 90s. Standard deviations in the low single digits. This is, of course, way more impressive than past semesters.

Then came the first midterm, a month into the term. In class, closed book, closed notes. It covers basic things, simpler than homework, and is preceded by a practice midterm they can do at home with questions of a similar nature to the real thing. The result: an average of 70 and a big standard deviation. It looks like the usual distribution, just way to the left compared to the past.

A few students have come into my office to discuss their performance. I see them see the sticker. I think they then start to feel the burden of understanding. I'll know more after the next midterm.

We're all still learning how to deal with this new reality.

This reminds me of Cluely, whose manifesto concludes with this (emphasis theirs):

I know they're trying hard to be slick and catchy with their wording, but boy does this framing make me uncomfortable.

PS. Here's a wayback link, in case the manifesto goes kaput soon.

The situation you describe here is actually quite common. From the Texas Department of Public Safety:

I've encountered similar wording in every US state I've been in.

But in any case, I think they're precisely trying to maneuver themselves out of this situation altogether. Quoting from the article:

"Providing guidance" ... Slick. Let's see how that goes.

"Is the AI going to go to jail for you?"

Fun fact: we don't even seem to be able to give "the AI" traffic tickets yet in CA.

On a more serious note, the likelier scenario is: an AI company roll out an AI tax prep tool that waives all liability and is, say, 50% cheaper than all the (non-free) alternatives. I can see people going for that. Some will say, well, I'll do it if the expected value of my refund minus my cost and penalty dollar value is > 0. I'm not one of those people. But they're out there.

Aha! That makes a lot of sense. Thank you for the clarification.

I also find this approach very interesting. I wonder:

Does that mean a Matthew McConaughey lookalike going "Alright, alright, alright" is off-limits for satire?

Fast forwarding along that train of thought, that could lead to... interesting consequences.

Whoops: I meant, I expect (b) (not (a)).

Yes it did. It shortened the work week from six days to five, and shortened the work day to eight hours.

This part needs clarification. Automation shortened the work week in the sense that it exacerbated a problem whose resolution was the 40 hour workweek. What I mean to clarify is, employers didn't just say, great, now with automation we only need our employees to work 40 hours per week. They said the opposite. Industrial machines could run long hours tirelessly, so employers (factory owners, etc.) had employees work longer and longer hours, etc. This then led to social unrest and, slowly but eventually, a legally mandated 40 hour workweek.

Fast forward to today.

Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that AI makes people more productive. In the gradient of:
(a) company aims for approx. fixed total productivity, and thus a shorter workweek, or
(b) company aims for approx. fixed schedule, and thus more productivity,
I'd expect (a) to be the more likely general outcome. On this part, I agree with the GP.

I'm not sure what to make of Dimon (et al) talking about shorter work weeks. Maybe we can revisit this when JP Morgan (et al) shortens theirs.

Thank you! That's good to know. And I agree re: casual observers.

I'll be curious to see what can be done for audio. The 'voiceprints' that banks use can't really suffice on their own.

On one hand, yes, I appreciate the comments pointing out that photos have always been ... malleable, critical thinking has always been necessary, etc. On the other hand, the problem has exploded in scale. The barrier to entry for producing realistic AI fakes (photos, videos, audio, you-name-it) is very, very low. And getting lower by the day. Surely, we can't pretend that we should be passive about this and go about our business as usual.

Can people enlighten me/us about the solutions you're aware of that are being pursued? Maybe some sort of visible, QR-like crypto signature watermark on pictures or videos for authenticity, tying the file to its creator? Something else for audio? I am really quite curious.

Thanks in advance!

There's a comment under the WSJ article I find worth repeating. WSJ user @LouisLin574 wrote: "They never talk about the fact that the vast majority of the stock grants go to the top executives. See how they say average not median. This is purely a recruiting tool and free PR hype. And all that stock can be worthless. It is just theoretical value at current arbitrary valuation."