You need to get back on your meds. Nothing about this article is concerning to anyone with a passing understanding of what is happening. AIs can already choose to communicate in different ways, they already know about concepts like encryption. It would be blindingly obvious to most people that an AI that wasn't smart enough to work this out without being programmed isn't going to be smart enough to plan and execute the extinction of mankind.

If you have to link to the Daily Mail to back up your position then it's a pretty safe bet your opinion is wrong.

You may want a world where everyone is fingerprinted, DNA registered etc automatically and that all phone activity is logged and available to law enforcement automatically; plenty of other people see this as a massive risk to civil liberty because you can't control how that information will be used or misused once it is collected. You want to bet someone like Trump or Nixon wouldn't be happy to find whistleblowers highlighting abuses like Watergate using this information, or are you naive enough to think the checks and balances are sufficient to stop abuse...

Don't disagree with your general point but your wrong on when Twitter started requiring logins. Twitter was bought by Musk in late 2022 and started restricting viewing without an account in mid-2023.

Did Mark Twain have that plan at a point where copies of his works could be made by anyone and distriuted as physical and digital copies within hours of release if it wasn't for copyright protections? If not, it seems a little redundant to claim it provides insight in a completely different context.

How definitive your claim about Facebook is says a lot about lack of consideratiion you've given the issue before commenting. Facebook are investing billions in this area and are paying very generously for some of the data they use. If they hadn't torrented the works and their options were spend some money or not have the material they would happily have spent a large amount of money for it.

I'm a long way from happy with copyright law as it stands but arguments against entirely against it need to be a lot more persuasive than those.

Do we really want to encourage a world where users can just filter out the existence of other types of people they don't approve of? Once they've sorted out blocking the concept of gay people would you also advocate them adding buttons to filter out black people, asians, mixed race relationships, women in positions of leadership, disabled people so that people who want to discriminate against them can do so more easily as well?

Figures that someone this obsessed with woke is enough to not understand the redundancy in saying PC correct.

I'm sure your experience is valid, but my anecdotal evidence has been much more positive. In programming I've found that ChatGPT, I have less Copilot experience, is good as an assistant to people developing applications. At the more simplistic level it is more effective that searching for information via a traditional search engine, and as the employees become more capable it can be used to save some time writing relatively generic code for defined requirements. I'm sure when you get to people who are fulltime developers of complicated bespoke solutions it will become increasingly useless.

It's a long way from perfect but it feels like a considerable enhancement on traditional search.

I don't disagree with your summary, but I think I take away a different context. Regardless of your view of individual laws, how viable it is to enforce them etc etc that doesn't make refusing to enforce laws more or less of a legal and political issue. Trump supporters likely now believe that the TikTok ban was a dangerous infringement of free-speech as justification in the same way democrats might have defended their party doing something similar when it aligned with their views.

I'm completely agreed that this will likely only be the start of a wave of likely even more egregious illegal acts but what did anyone expect? What has anyone done to try and moderate the scope a president has towards totalitarian rule by fiat in the years after Trumps first term when it was patently obvious that the checks and balances barely held that time?

It makes way more sense than your response which is just parroting refuted, false, political claims. For example California made it easier to controlled burn a few years ago, they did recently restrict it but that was specifically because things were so dry the risk of any type of burning was too high. I'd like to be surprised that people are quick to jump on events like this that can kill or ruin people's lives to make false political attacks but sadly that's pretty much the MO of the right these days.

This is made up bollocks. I don't personally put pronouns on my CV etc but I know people who do and almost universal reason is that they want to make people whose pronouns are less obvious, or less common, feel comfortable sharing how they would prefer to be addressed. You might prefer socialising with a bunch of self-centric assholes but plenty of people enjoy spending time with people who have some empathy.

They are wrong. I don't know of any games "that tell kids girls should be boys"; would you care to provide an example?

And what exactly do you mean hear more of this stuff? Are you really that upset from having to be aware there are gays and minority people in real life that you rage on the internet because a game dev gives you the choice on gender in a game, or that Witcher 4 is going to have a 30 something woman as the player character instead of a barely legal teen girl or basically anytype of hetero man? These are exactly the sort of things people complaining about 'wokeness' in video games have raged about recently and are literally adding games to 'woke' lists for.

When I see posts like the one you're responding to it really emphasises how different some people and societies are. We had a TV delivered a little late a few days ago, because we couldn't be in we left a key with the neighbour and left a note on the door for the delivery person. If they ever need help with taking bins out when on holiday etc we're happy to help. It must really suck to distrust the people you live surrounded by.

It's the opposite of a non-argument; and your post literally repeats and validates their point. You can spend ages travelling about and you'll have less choice and pay more than buying online for a lot of products.

Anytime someone claims something like it is unrealistic for people not to have ID on them it demonstrates they either aren't British or are incredibly out of touch with the wider population of their country which somewhat undermines any other points they are making. It's common not to carry ID in the UK, especially people who don't drive.

I think this is a pretty good summary of one of the risks. What I don't know about is how compelling the counter-argument is. People are already being detained mistakenly, and the police will be in contact with people they wish to detain but not realise it both of which are issues you would expect this to help with.
There are already a depressing number of cases, disproportionately black, people who are systemically harrassed by police, even if not intentionally by individual officers, because they 'look' like someone they are after so it isn't like the current situation isn't flawed.