I do wonder whether this might actually be by design.

Perhaps the research and development of all of this was partly driven so that absolutely anything at all can be disregarded as fake, in the end.

Do people even use the stupid "smart" stuff on the telly?

I mean, our telly is technically smart, but the ethernet cable isn't plugged in. There's nothing on there that's actually useful anyway. I tried the built-in YouTube thing once, but it was too janky to be usable, so I didn't try it twice. The dongle stick things are better. The backlight's a bit fucked, anyway, and I don't really watch the telly myself.

Do the clankers features not burn a lot of their money?

Wouldn't that money be better spent on more useful features, squashing bugs, and paying their people?

Perhaps they get their info from those Hollywood movie films, where space pirates freeze solid when they walk the space plank.

Either that, or these turbonerds have just never used a vacuum flask to keep their hot drinks hot.

That's the thing, isn't it. Regular folks who don't really know how any of this (in the broadest sense) works will have no idea where anything that they type into the computer goes.

Quite frankly, with this sort of thing, it's absolutely the company's responsibility to ensure that their staff are being properly trained, if the company's information is that important. That means either actually investing in their employees, or ensuring that newkids are up to snuff on this sort of thing.

It's probably even worse with the people who've only ever poked a tablet or cellphone; a good number of those won't even know what a file is, let alone shit like sending network traffic to third party servers.

From my own company's "security" training, they do actually touch on this, but only with some very light detail.

I was wondering about that⦠I suppose at some point these LLM dudes are going to need robots on the ground to ask insightful questions at press conferences, gauge the word on the street, and find out the opinions of people whoâ(TM)ve just been killed in war zones.

On the other hand, will the common scum even be able to tell if the newspapers simply use LLMs to make up any old bollocks, instead of using flesh reporters to gather news?

Ahhhh, I remember seeing some of the news coverage back when that Clinton fella got his knob polished by Monica from Friends in their round office.

To be perfectly frank, it would be nice to only have to get outraged by simpler things like that these days. The guys there have definitely allowed their empire to degenerate a little too far :-(

This is all very interesting, but what is the point of them spending so much money and effort on something to ferry their head of state around in?

Surely if he or she got whacked off whilst on a junket, then they could simply get a new one?

Not American. At first glance, this looks like an effective method for pulling the wool over the eyes of the gormless proletariat. Presumably there would be corresponding suppression in the news with regards to unprofitable weather events.

However, will they also need to find an effective solution to prevent the common scum from discussing unprofitable weather events in public?

For example, people are definitely going to realise that somethingâ(TM)s awry when their home is destroyed. That sort of thing is hard to ignore.

Hm, I recently had to go through old insurance and pension accounts, to get some things tidied up.

They all seem to have the âoeAIâ chatbox thing now.

Every question I asked of them was met with âoecall us.â

Itâ(TM)s bizarre. It would be simpler if they just put the phone number in the place where the little âoeHi! Call-Me-Kenneth, how may I destroy all fleshy ones I mean help you today?â speech bubble pops up.

Of course, then thereâ(TM)s the robot telephone receptionist that doesnâ(TM)t understand any questions either, and simply says to wait for a fleshy one to be let out of its cageâ¦