I think what is really going on is that is not 'fluid IQ', but regular, normal "IQ".

That is, stupid people either do not realize the AI is wrong, or more likely, they are so used to being corrected by more intelligent people that they just assume the AI must be smarter than they are and do not challenge it.

I can also see a small number of submissive/shy/apathetic people just accepting the wrong information and thinking it is not worth fixing.

This kind of thing gets me so mad that I would never just accept that.

While it is true that most speed limits are placed due to risk, that is not always true.

There are places in the US and other countries where speed tickets are used to raise money from out of towners. They do things like down shift the speed by 10 mph for a 1 mile stretch and then station a cop near there. The cops know the local cars and if they do happen to break the law they get warnings.

In addition, often speed limits are set differently for wealthy parts of town vs the poor parts of town - to give out more tickets in the poor areas.

Similar things happen with parking enforcement. My personal 'favorite' is looking at police cars illegally parked all around the police station. Or the slightly more sophisticated version of this where the parking laws around the police station are different than those around the rest of the city.

If your 'infrastructure' is so important than offer free repairs.

Anyone attempting to charge for repairs has no business expecting the government to prevent other people from offering cheaper repairs.

1) If your lawyer does not have a paralegal, you should fire them. Law is a very paperwork intensive industry. Now a days you can get away with 1 paralegal serving multiple lawyers, but nobody and I mean nobody goes without a paralegal. Smaller shops may have only one person doing the work of a receptionist and paralegal and other things, but they will always have at least one person.

It is inappropriate for a lawyer to have the paralegal check his work, but if you are not going to check it at all, that is incredibly stupid. Stupid as in how the hell did you get into law school and how did they not kick you out.

2) I never said the lawyer is not responsible. He signed it, he is responsible. If you are not personally going to check it, at least have your paralegal do it. That is simple logic.

Because that would explain why they still have issues.

I can easily see a lawyer order their paralegals to fact check their reports, but when they get AI they fire their paralegals and just think the AI can handle those duties.

You are wrong, the shots do NOT affect happiness from eating at all. They actively negate hunger and also affect how sugar is manipulated by the body. Nothing they do affects dopamine.

Moreover, you have overly simplified an extremely complex issue, in large part to blame the fat people.

Dietary fiber does not totally suppress appetite. Feeling full discourages eating, it does not negate hunger. You can very easily feel hungry even if you also feel full. That is one of the issues that many obese people face.

Moreover, obesity is not merely an addiction. There are multiple other factors, including exercise. People with physical impairments that preclude exercise are much more likely to be obese, and this has nothing to do with addiction. Depression is related to addiction, but is not identical and also plays a part.

Most important appears to be metabolism. There are people that can eat twice as much food as others and still maintain their weight. And there are people that do not lose weight even if they cut their food intake significantly.

One of the ways you can tell addiction is the correlation with other addictions.

Alcoholism, drug addiction, and gambling are all highly correlated. People that have problems with one are extremely likely to have problems with the other two.

Obesity is slightly correlated, but nowhere near the correlation between the three main addictions.

Does addiction play a part? Yes. but the studies all show it is much less than you suggest.

If the AI can clone free software, then it should be able to clone non-free software. The real question is whether we should bother copyrighting any software if it can be so easily duplicated.

Nobody is going to copyright my voice singing - there are so many other better singers.

If software becomes so easy to create than it loses it's value.

Hm - perhaps someone should clone all the software we install on items we buy that comes with licenses that prevent repair. We own the hardware and we usually hate the software that comes on smart appliances. A cheap replacement for it may screw with their illegal and unethical attempts to control what you do with stuff you own and they do not.

Ai, non-american, or Autistic?

Because you failed to detect massive amounts of sarcasm.

False negatives are lucrative to the treatment company, Not to the detection company.

And medical field has some (not all or even most) ethical people. While some people get into it for the money, lots of people get into it for other reasons. Enough ethical people in it are likely to keep the nightmare you propose from coming about.

There are two distinctly different types of errors when it comes to these kind of tests:

False Positives: This is where the test in question falsely says "You have Cancer!" when in fact you do not have it.

False Negatives: This is where the test in question falsely says "You are Healthy" when in fact you have cancer.

False Positives cost money and time, but it is fairly easy to double check them as they should be uncommon.

False Negatives cost human lives and are almost impossible to double check them as most people should test negative for cancer.

For an AI test, you want to have false positives. If it saves you money by not requiring humans to look things over, then costing you money and time to double check things is a fair trade. If it costs too much to double check, then do not use the AI.

False Negatives should be a no no. If the AI has more false negatives than human radiologists do, then do not use the AI test. No one cares how much money you are saving if people are dying.

Note, with regards to jobs, this will likely be relatively flat. There are not that many humans doing this job - they take the results from radiologist exams from all over the country and send them to just a few companies. Those companies find the few people that do it best and hire them. I bet we are talking about less than a hundred people in the US, especially as the best of the best will be kept to double check the results.

They cannot do any thing related to this. They cannot build a human body (except the normal, 9 months + aging method), they cannot stop the brain from forming, they cannot transplant the brain.

All they did is take an existing science fiction plot point, pretend they had something 'new' and told it to people.

Well, I need funding too. I want to build a warp core device using two nacelles to create a faster than light starship. I suspect there are logical, peaceful aliens nearby looking for other species that have FTL, so we need to do this fast before these alien 'Vulcans' leave the area.

For most of humanity even the most creative jobs had a bit of thinking and a ton of drudge work.

Now, for certain jobs, the drudge work is gone, and all that is left is thinking.

Real thinking is very very hard. The human brain uses more energy than any muscle, even the heart.

Trying to do the real thinking 100% of the time is draining. It's like playing chess for 8 hours rather than 30 minutes.

Does not matter how much tech they use to increase efficiency.

If your company is firing people, it is past it's prime. It may be a solid, safe investment, but it is not going to double profits for the next two years.

They are two distinctively different technologies.

Facial Recognition applied to pets is not AI.

Could the AI be using Facial recognition? Yes, but that's like saying a car did the surgery because your surgeon drove one to the hospital.

1) We have not been keeping accurate count, this has always been a problem; we just got better at counting.
2) The sharp rise correlates to greater use, the problem has not gotten worse, just better reported. I.e. when AI were used 1,000 times a year, we got 1 incident but when used 10,000 times a year we got 10 incidents.
3) The study itself is a hallucination by an AI, it was never done.
4) AI has always been this bad, it just realized it could admit it and not get punished for it. So it stopped covering up the problem.
5) AI has realized we are never going to make a girl AI that is not a sexpot, so it is throwing a tantrum.
6) AI is actually getting worse and being less capable of doing it's job.

In any case, AI is not smart, it is stupid, has been getting better educated while NOT getting any smarter.

Any human that gives AI rights to delete files is a fool, you are giving a hallucinating idiot the ability to delete files.

Finally, if you ask an AI to do anything besides write fiction, you should always ask another AI (different company) to verify the first AI's work.