To the people responsible for the data loss, who were making the decision. They apparently did not care about anyone else.

True to an extent. But it is much easier to do this test than to determine if and when the model with hallucinate. That is the issue with hallucinating models, people apparently often fail to realize when they are doing that. This is particularly true when the hallucinations reinforce their existing beliefs. As far the lawyers are concerned, I could not agree more. They should be suspended from the bar for a year and made to take remedial training.

It is just a test, showing that the system will do things that it is not supposed to do. The question then is what other things will it do that it is not supposed to do? One the one hand they were actively trying to make it fail, on the other hand might it fail under other circumstances? That it can be useful in some cases is probably true, but there is nothing to stop anyone from using it for other things. Systems with limited purposes and training are probably mostly safe, but these general systems trained on random collections of information are another matter.

minus handling fees and other minor charges

Maybe Zuckerberg is an alien.

There is really nothing new here. This has been going on for years and we seem no closer to resolving the discrepancy then we were when it was first discovered.

We need to see the exact terms. Is it $1 a year or $1 a year and other considerations, which can mean essentially anything the two parties have agreed to and do not want to disclose.

Anything can be gamed. some are harder than others.

If I created a scrabble game that encouraged people to commit suicide, I would definitely be likely to go to jail.

It will not stop people from going to AIs with their problems. It should prevent or at least reduce the ability of people to promote this and make money off it. Of course, if we really were serious, we would make the AI companies responsible for the results of the model's advice. When a model suggests suicide, for example, we could charge its owner with a crime (promoting suicide is a crime in many jurisdictions).

You are assuming that the researchers at a name institution are necessarily better than those somewhere else. One of the most productive scientists in my field worked in a Polish pharmacy and did research on his own time. Prestigious journals including Nature have been forced to reveal that papers they have published were false. Certainly, there are far too many paper mill journals, but that is a symptom of the disease not the cause. Academic researchers are judged on quantity rather than quality, because quality is easier to measure. However, quality is measurable (Science Citation Index for example), so that is no excuse. It is just laziness on the part of university administration and grant providers.

Easy to set up a strawman and then say nothing meets it. Greenpeace is not a creditable source of information. They exist primarily to fund the rich life style of their leadership

And appear to be regretting the change. Cost is always a factor.

Atomic weapons took destructiveness to a whole new level. One aircraft could now carry the equivalent of the entire B-29 fleet, and that was the relatively weak first-generation bombs. Merely doubling the power of a bomb would not be cost-effective, if the cost of the munition was even twice as high and it is unlikely that this material could ever come even close to being that cheap.

I agree. There are a few places that have chargers for particular brands (i.e., Tesla), but only a few and not conveniently placed. Also, the cost of charging is much higher than if you are able to charge at home. I do not think that using exclusively commercial chargers would be economic even if they were available and convenient, which they are not.