!. Get AI out there and everyone to use it because it's useful. Allow reasonably powerful models.
2. Make the peasents..I mean..consumers feel like some control has been given to them so they're not nickle and dimed for simple HTML or programs that AI can make for users for simple tools.
3. Introduce more powerful AI and for security and everything else now, is locked behind a vendor that you can't get your hands on so you need to continue your life subscription to everything, and you accept the vendor since you're used to AI.
4. Company saves lots of money not needing humans to work, more money shifts from the bottom to the top..

Yeah I like this one. If a human gets it wrong they can be liable. So if we replace it with AI, let's make the CEO liable. Fantastic idea.

Fine, how about it's also done anonymously so you have no idea who is doing more or less screen time, and zero hints about who it might be.

Then you can just have open company policies if you see people getting too much screen time and workload and put in policies that reduce it.
Because it's not about figuring out enforcement, right?

That makes a lot of sense.

I didn't feel suddenly social media sites etc had developed better morals and was suddenly concerned about the content on their site being pushed by bots, misinforming people or making it a waste of time, it's actually because it's messing with their advertising and potential advertising revenue so now they want to push for verification.

Thank you for showing everyone the truth.

There is no high horse here. It's you flailing as you fall off of the one you thought you had. You want to shame and blame but refuse to bring up the real culprits that, reality, facts, physics, as we're all on same planet point to, but you don't get virtue signalling points for that, so you won't say it. Chicken.

Okay but, geographically where are you going to go do it?

Come on, say it, or admit what you really are by not facing reality and callking it out, like a virtue signalling twonk.

Sooooo...you're worried about the CO2. That's a super good concern, and you're right, you're talking about all the CO2 adding up, since it's all contained to this one planet and that's a major problem for all of us.

So I'm waiting for you to go tackle where the most CO2 tons enter the atmosphere from. Go have a talk with them and fix it out. Percentages mean nothing per person. Oxygen isn't going to fill your lungs because you contributed a lesser percent per person. Strong storms won't avoid you because you used renewable. Cheating by using per person when a vast majority of people are rual and poor don't count if the industries in that country pollute more than the rest of the world isn't going to fix anything, virtue signalling won't help when it hits the fan.

Go deal with that first, then you can talk to me about paper straws.

Asking for a friend

Whaaaaaa we're having trouble feeding advertisements to users, users who don't want them and don't want to be manipulated and have this shoved into their face all the time...whaaaaaa

Listen to me not care. Advertisers can stuff it.

Okay? Don't.

Thanks? Maybe try a middle east country where you're more welcome?

Except that it's an AI product that if they have hostile intentions they can cripple or direct the AI to work in specific ways to follow their views while collecitng massive usage data and feedback to improve their models while it operates in multiple levels for defense contracts.

So you're right, for steel they could do that. But for what AI can do? Complex enough that it can be a real problem even if you 'order' them to let you use it. Use your fucking brain.

Is this even really an LLM thing?

If you searched an account for specific phrases, places or things and found major events or issues that are in it, and google search it, which is all the LLM is basically doing, you'll probably get a hit on another social platform where they posted that exact specific thing?

What is this? "People googling information found that AI could also google information and get similar results"

Yeah this is a good way to put it. They are absolutely a supply chain risk. It's the give an inch take a mile. If a company that sells a product in the US and is a US company can sell it to the military but only if they use it in an approved way sounds like Tank girl and the water & power corporation.

Can you imagine if a steel manufacture said they can sell it to the military but only if they use it in tanks they don't deploy overseas or something else?
No dice.

No, that's like a company that makes MREs for the miltary but saying they can't eat them except under specific circumstances that the company agrees with it.

Go talk to your own kind about it. You see how pathetic you guys are? Your side starts running your mouth off about supporting a child rapist just because I knocked down his whining about twitter, my comment had nothing to do with the epstien files.

But holy shit it's melt down time you guys get treated the same way back. FAFO.