An artificial algorithmic "mind" knows what it knows.
A human mind can conceive that there are things it does not know.

So AI can sort through and retrieve an item and that item's entire ranked adjacent items, faster and more reliably than any human brain. But it cannot break its own rules. You can ask AI to generate an image of a cat with nine tails and zebra striped fur, and it can do that because you - the human mind - prompted it to invoke those specific rules (cat, nine, tails, zebra, fur) and combine them in specific ways. But if you - a human mind - paint a photorealistic image of a cat with nine tails and zebra striped fur wearing a ballet tutu, a top hat, and a monocle, swimming past a coral reef, then present that image to an AI program and request it identify the thing in the picture, it might return anything. And, whatever it outputs as its answer, if you follow up to input "Are you sure that's correct? It has a tutu like a ballerina, stripes like a zebra, top hat like a victorian gentleman, (etc.)" it is very likely to output a completely different guess, or (if programmed by human minds to do so) will output that it can't be sure.

Meanwhile, every (non-neurologically damaged) human being over the age of 5 will immediately say "a cat" or something like "a cat with zebra fur and a lot of tails and a tutu and...". If you follow up to ask, "Are you sure that's correct? Maybe it's something else" they will say "It's a weird cat, but yeah it's a cat" - even though there has never existed such a cat in the history of the world, and thus from a taxonomic, scientific, reality sense that image does not contain a cat.

The human mind has capacity for unknowns, so it can instantly expand to create space where that completely-not-a-real-thing still is a cat.

The intriguing "magic" is that you could train a current-gen AI to recognize that image as a cat. IF you first created tens of thousands of images of equally bizarre cats, mixed them with images of equally bizarre dinosaurs, giraffes, cactuses, etc., then had thousands of human minds click CAPTCHA tests on the images, then added that data to the AI. That is, the AI could eventually have a high accuracy rate on bizarrely-visualized cats if subjected to thousands/millions of instances of cats. Meanwhile, a 5 year old human who may have only seen a small handful of cats in their entire life, and never ever one wearing a tutu/hat/monocle/stripes while swimming in the ocean, will instantly and with total certainty know "that's a cat".

That's one reason I scoff at the claims we're right around the corner from (or already across the line to) human-level general intelligence if we just (n+1) faster. Every big LLM out there has "read" more text than a random sample of a billion human beings. Human understanding is NOT just about adding more instances of a thing. There's something else (and a lot of it) going on that makes human conscious cognition what it is.

What's even more provocative to me is watching what happens when your toddler learns what a thing is. They become obsessed with it. For the next several months, every time a cat (physical or an image) comes within view, they point and excitedly say "Cat!!!" "DaDa! Cat!!!" Same thing for every airplane in the sky, every bird at the window. They are hungry for ideas to fill their capacity. The human animal inherently LOVES acquiring concepts. We crave them. They pleasure us.

It's why elementary school kids love corny jokes. A joke takes a concept, then jumps from that to a different, unexpected concept. The brain gets the pleasure of knowing the first concept and is following along, then gets a hit of pleasure from suddenly having a new concept thrust into the concept space and recognizing both the nature of the connection and the jump. The more apparent distance between the two concepts, the more pleasure we derive from it. Almost all kid jokes (and a huge percentage of grownup humor) takes the form:
1) Banal context followed by weird incongruous situation. Knock knock. Who's there? Me. Me who. Meow!
OR
2) Weird context followed by banal situation. Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side!

5 year olds absolutely love jokes like #1. The reason is because of that pleasure hit from making a new connection. Until they first hear the joke, the word "me" has only been used to refer to the self. The word "meow" has only been used to refer to the sound of a cat. The concepts of "self" and "sound of a cat" have zero conceptual connection. That is, they have an infinite distance between them, semantically. They only connect through an accident of the particular phonetics of English and a few other languages where both words start with the same syllable. And kids get that. They don't know the word onomatopoeia, but they already understand and know how to work with the concept of onomatopoeia.

You can melt every ounce of ore in the world and refine every drop of oil in order to produce 60 trillion GPUs and then use every centimeter of land to create one massive datacenter, and the absolute best of our current AI models will still not get the joke. They will have less understanding and less concept-manipulation capacity than a 5 year old. It's all still just programmatic I/O and logic gating at this point.

Global mergers/acquisitions heading toward all technology being the proprietary possession of a small coterie of Barons.
You will be technically "free" to live as you wish, the same way the poor schmucks who took the Red Pill exited the Matrix and were free-- to scrabble out their depressing MRE-hardtack existence hiding in the dark crags of subterranean tunnels.

You will, on paper, philosophically speaking, have all your freedoms, but they won't be worth exercising. Because if you want access to the productivity, the food, the space, the medical care, the communication, the platforms, the government services... access to anything at all, everything on the planet is behind some kind of paywall.
16 tons, and what do you get?

1) Convert the planet's entire socioeconomic infrastructure into dependence on ComputeAsAService.
2) Turn compute access into currency.
3) ???
4) Profit!

(Where "???" means "breaking the placenta becomes a shrink-wrap TOC whereby you implicitly agree at birth to become a wholly owned subsidiary of Weyland-Yutani Corp". And "Profit!" means "Sweep the table. It's yours in perpetuity. Only thing left is cloning and mind downloads, then it's Godhood for one ultimate winner of the Game Of Clones".)

Do you want to live to see the world of "Alien : Earth" series? Because this path is how you get the world of the "Alien : Earth" series. Or Altered Carbon. Or a few thousand other SF stories over the years.

Global mergers/acquisitions heading toward all technology being the proprietary possession of a small coterie of Barons.
You will be technically "free" to live as you wish, the same way the poor schmucks who took the Red Pill exited the Matrix and were free to scrabble out their depressing MRE-hardtack existence hiding in the dark crags of subterranean tunnels.

You will have all your freedoms, but they won't be worth anything. Because if you want access to the productivity, the food, the space, the medical care, the communication, the platforms, the government services... access to anything at all, everything on the planet is behind some kind of paywall.
16 tons, and what do you get?

1) Convert the planet's entire socioeconomic infrastructure into dependence on ComputeAsAService.
2) Turn compute access into currency.
3) ???
4) Profit!

(Where "???" means "breaking the placenta becomes a shrink-wrap TOC whereby you implicitly agree at birth to become a wholly owned subsidiary of Weyland-Yutani Corp". And "Profit!" means "Sweep the table. It's yours in perpetuity. Only thing left is cloning and mind downloads, then it's Godhood for one ultimate winner of the Game Of Clones".)

Do you want to live to see the world of "Alien : Earth" series? Because this path is how you get the world of the "Alien : Earth" series. Or Altered Carbon. Or a few thousand other SF stories over the years.

Whoever out there is hoping the above, clearly hasn't paid attention to how products like this are brought to market.

To be accurate, the sentence should read:

It is hoped - by hospital corporations, med tech manufacturers, insurers, and all the corporations who supply/service or invest in the business of medical care - that remote robotic surgery could spare future investors the vast expense and inconvenience of employing enough humans for each city/region to have a set of people and facilities to provide common medical care; now they can source their surgeons through a rotation of countries with the lowest-billable-hour wages, and help deliver better profits to equity investment firms.

People do not create whole sentences de novo. We each have tendencies to re-use phrases and constructs, as well as tendencies for how we type sentences -- including this one which contains multiple clauses, commas, an em dash, a hyphenated "re-use" instead of "reuse", I wrote "de novo" instead of ex nihilo or ab chao or out of nowhere or from scratch, and so on.

and so on
and whatnot
on and on
yadda yadda
etc.
etc
etcetera
&c

There are lots of possible variations for every choice of word and punctuation; enough variety to develop fingerprinting based on emergent clusters of those variations.

Your scenario of one-to-one matching versus one-to-a-million matching is technically correct, but doesn't reflect the reality. Yes, it would be potentially difficult to firmly prove the author of any one single anonymous post with no context. But to determine who has control of an anonymous account based on that anon account's wording patterns, the pattern of when they post, how frequently, which topics do they post on, even what opinions they express.... all of that is getting easier and easier to do with automation. The future we're building will be 100% doxxable from the ground up.

I'd make an even stronger argument -- not only is this "the best possible outcome", it is the only plausible outcome.
IP doesn't exist in. Copyright doesn't exist. Unlike the right to control your body or the right to free thought or the right to defend yourself, there is nothing about IP law that is natural, tangible, or inherent to existing. IP law is a whole-cloth invention. Governments conjure and construct IP protections, justified by one and only one purpose -- to provide extra ways for humans to earn money with which to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves.

Any application of IP law which does not give a piece of IP into the control of a human or group of humans for the above purpose, is immediately and irredeemably illegitimate, is outside the justifying purpose for which the fabricated construct of "Intellectual Property" exists.

IP isn't real.
We created it.
We can un-create it at any time.
If non-humans can have IP, and indeed if IP becomes actively hostile to its purpose, it should be nullified.

I tried. Interesting... all references to that string are censored, regardless of whether the overall post is positive or negative. Merely mentioning the name triggers the censor.
With a filter that aggressive, I suspect that by trying to evade the content block you're probably gonna get Bixzslopped into next Tuesday.

When you say "platform" what do you mean?
The server uptime/latency?
Their Android app?
Their iOS app?
Their website?
The account/content settings available to users?

Despite the increasing popular support for thoughtcrime over the past several decades, it has never been a valid approach. Morality is a terribly illogical thing to base crime and punishment on. When a neighbor's dog digs into your backyard and mauls your toddler, you do not need to be "exceptionally detached" or "driven mad" to insist that the dog be euthanized or permanently caged, despite the fact that the dog has zero moral culpability and had zero ability to choose otherwise. You identify the threat and you disarm, relocate, or destroy the threat.

Predicating crime and punishment on the moral culpability that arises from the alleged existence of "free will" is foolish, and is the direct progenitor of nonsense like the "gay panic" defense or Lorena Bobbit's acquittal for a crime she freely (ha ha) admitted to committing. There should never be any such thing as "Not Guilty by reason of temporary insanity" unless you believe in fairy tales like angels and demons and gods meddling in human minds. There should only be "Guilty and disordered". We are cognitive-behavioral engines; we are who we are, and we do who we are, and we are what we do. The "insanity" is your mind/body being exactly what it is. Insanity isn't some quantum subparticle ephemera that appears ex nihilo and then just as suddenly winks out once the math is balanced. The "insanity" wasn't temporary, even though the circumstances which triggered your behavior may be. Society has every right to disarm, incarcerate, or destroy you for your own damaging/destructive behavior, regardless of whether you did it freely or out of neurohormonal compulsion. Your child is not any less mauled/dead because the dog has no moral agency.

...is the same reason I keep changing my Unobtanium antimatter containment field.

Because neither thing actually exists, so they can be changed at whim with no consequences.

How will your Aunt Carol "simply... reinstall the OS"?

Speaking of poor communication comprehension, who modded this appropriate, on-topic, mild, reasoned comment as Troll?

It raises a perfectly legitimate question. I personally know several people who do not read fiction for entertainment at all, but are highly communicative critical thinkers who have written non-fiction books in their field. And on the other end, I have worked with many people who are always reading entertaining fiction, yet cannot compose structured explanatory documents or create clear instructions for a process.