Something cannot be addictive, that does not enter your body.

Your own body produces the chemicals, and you have the ability to self-regulate your own chemicals. An outside source of inspiration/ hate/ etc cannot regulate your own chemicals for you. You are responsible for your own decisions, and that includes the self-regulation or parental-regulation of things you interact with, which do not have aspects which enter your body. It is not scientifically possible for something to be addictive which does not enter your body; a so-called addiction to something like this, would be diagnostic in determining something wrong with your own abilities independent of the thing, not with the thing.

It is the same "video games cause gun violence" argument all over again. It CANNOT cause addiction. It does not ENTER you. In the situation of photosensitivity to flashing causing seizures, that is a flaw of the consumer interacting with it, not a flaw of the media displaying the flashes.

This may go down as the least-likely event specifically to the tech sector..
"That was as bright as as Picket's charge"
"You have a greater chance of success in prosecuting Anna's Archive"

There is still such a massive movement against AI, that there is no shred of hope for AI to take over the web; they don't even serve the same function. This is like suggesting that televising sporting events will kill venue ticket sales.

Is there a single industry genuinely interested in Copilot, or just ways to completely disable it in all ways possible?

Establish your AI company as a member of the press, and you should be good =)

"Kevin Mitnick" in French?

fraudsters gonna fraud

This pings my "mark of the beast" alert, for any technology that would be mounted to the forehead, of any kind.

Similar to Zucky's attempt to make a virtual himself, there could be could be made a virtual president, trained on any given president's thought process and style, in order for a secondary leader assigned such a helm, be coached in that degree of thought process, in the absence of the actual.

This is the actual main reason I don't go to the movies anymore; it's not because there aren't movies I want to see, or because of the ticket prices -- it is because I am force-fed around a half hour solid of ads, which largely have zero relevance to me whatsoever. I am literally paying to see ads, by going there.

This is great information to help me avoid Windows 11 altogether, knowing they're going to force it in and not be honest about it.

There needs to be other categories than just these two.. For example, I use it for creativity purposes, such as to come up with a silly story to read for fun. This use doesn't fall into either of those categories; it doesn't require relying on untrustworthy reasoning for a solution -- it's just a silly story to read, akin to Asimov's "Someday" story bot.

It is impossible to prove social media is addictive, without first ruling out that a person had a pre-existing failure to self-inhibit dangerous practices, which social media is not responsible for regulating. If this is not ruled out first, you're blaming the gun for shooting, rather than the shooter for pulling the trigger.

Was it necessary to state in the body of the article, the specifical email address used by the accused? Was that wise?

Society is not the governor of science. To become addicted, a chemical from outside of you must enter you, that causes the addiction. No chemical enters you via social media. You already have all of the chemicals, and your own actions cause the release of them. A society cannot officiate whether that is true.