A lot of small-town local news is things like the police blotter, community calendars, school lunch menus, and the like that could be done by a computer in the pre-"AI"-era.

Now things like investigative journalism or on-the-scene reporting of actual news events are better done (for now) with a human touch.

I would've had the reporters rather than the editors do the first review though. They would have a better sense of whether the AI-generated output reflected their input.

Or, to put it another way, the paper should've trained the reporters to use AI as a story-writing tool, with the expectation that if the AI was as good as it is purported to be,* the AI's first draft will be "almost good enough" to go to the editor for final review.

Reality check: Things rarely go according to plan. The AI probably won't be good enough to do this for a few more months or years.

I would ask how you know this, but on second thought, I don't really want to know how you know this.

I think lab-grown meat is supposed to be like Diet Coke with high-fructose corn syrup instead of artificial sweetener.

"planned to, bad PR forced us to canceled plans, but if we can get away with it in the future we would still really like to"?

The boycott-for-ethics target market is too small. For any other market you'll either have to make it seem "better than meat" (i.e.a premium product at a premium price) or price it no higher than meat AND make the eating experience at least as good.

Good luck on trying to make it a premium product.

If you can get the price down and make the taste/texture the same and either make the cooking process the same or make it easy to cook then I'll try it. Until then, unless there is a supply shortage of meat (which would drive up meat prices and make lab-grown meat cost-competitive) why should I bother?

It's much more likely that the actual voice was from one or more hired or licensed voice actors that happened to sound somewhat like David Greene.

The AI might have made the final adjustments to pitch and to speaking style.

I doubt there was malicious intent on anyone's part.

The discovery process in the lawsuit should reveal the truth. However, if there is a settlement the public may never know the truth.

Sites hosted on ".onion" sites that use good "operational security" are pretty anonymous. Sure, their aggregate network traffic load and patterns can be detected and the fact that the content is using certain ports and is either encrypted or deliberate gibberish/random noise can be detected, but other than that, it's pretty secure.

If a TOR or TOR-like network was configured so all the .onion sites or their equivalents were 'always' sending a steady* stream of traffic to other sites, say, 1MB/sec to intermediate site A, 1 MB/sec to intermediate site B, and 1MB/sec to intermediate site C where "junk padding data" was used to "fill the pipe" that would make traffic-pattern analysis even harder.

* instead of a 'steady/constant-rate' stream, a "typical-looking" stream could be used, say, something made to look like playing back a video.

Being carded in person can be and until recently* was done with the identity being revealed to only one person who was likely to forget it shortly after purchase.

Being "carded" online all but requires that the ID be stored at least for a short time and typically indefinitely, with no guarantees that it isn't being copied by malicious actors or used for privacy-hostile purposes.

If we can adopt a standard way to verify our ages without presenting our identities or at a minimum have our identities stored relatively locally, say, by someone akin to your friendly neighborhood Notary Pubic, it would eliminate the "big juicy target for hackers and governments" that are today's identity verification systems.

* Old school, still in use in many places: Look at IT, look for obvious signs of ID being fake or tampered with, let person in, forget about it. New school, here in some places and coming soon in many others: Run IT through electronic verifier that phones home to the government that issued it for verification, which has similar privacy risks as online-id-verification.

Companies don't move on a dime, many customers won't trust companies that replace all their people with computers before the tech has proven itself, and in regulated industries like banking regulators will prevent the AI-takeover until the tech is very mature.

Personally, I see prototypes and serious trial runs being done in the 1-5 year time frame and a gradual replacement in non- or lightly-regulated scenarios in the 2-20 year time frame.

Regulated scenarios' time-frames will be at the mercy of the regulators.

This was supposed to be a reply to Re:Don't worry which said

It might be well over 99.5% though.

The world's heads-of-government make up most of the rest. But with less than 300 national heads-of-government and over 340 million Americans contributing to the world's hubris, it's easy to round to 100%.

Anon never shopped at Aldi or one of the other stores that makes you pay a deposit for a shopping cart.

It will be restored with each new Democratic president, and removed again with each new Republican one, until/unless one party or the other codifies "their way" into law.

I think the common term is

Standard* Accounting Practices

*wink-wink