If AI is not useful then why are trillions of dollars being invested in it?

Because corporations don't want to pay people anymore, and slavery is (mostly) illegal. AI will never ask for a raise, try to unionize, sleep, take the day off, or get sick. Plus, AI expenditures are relatively predictable, and you don't have to pay overtime. Corporations don't want AI because it's the next best thing, or that it's superduper awesome, they want it because fuck everyone who has to work for a living, that's why. Why should they share money with employees when they can keep it all for themselves?

It mentions two games, but then only mentions Oxenfree. What's the other game?

So, if this lawsuit wins, the ISPs get to keep selling user information. Users can't really stop this, due to the fact that most locations have only one (or, if they're lucky, two) providers. The law that the lawsuit is fighting says that they have to get permission from their users before they sell said information. If the lawsuit wins (and strikes down the law), the free speech of the ISP's users is squashed. If the lawsuit loses, the users' free speech is protected, and the ISPs can no longer sell the users' information without permission. I kinda hate that the right to make money is now considered a free speech right here.

...before a bunch of people say that climate change is a lie and that this is totally normal.

....you expect Microsoft to do good? Of course errors will "fail silently". Garbage is as garbage does.

Frosty piss. Also, I think Derakhshan may be right.

Take the what? Is this my browser? I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Sadly, he is not.

Did you check out the link? See the game? Yes, it's entirely possible that an AI wrote this game. That said, it's kind of a crappy game. It's very short, and doesn't have much in the way of emotional involvement. I'm still excited to see what the future holds...

I kinda thought that was the point from the beginning. I'm kind of surprised that almost 20 years later people are finally starting to get the point of the film. I loved it when I saw it in the theater, and I bought it on VHS, and then later on DVD. It's a great film. Sure, it's cheesy as hell, but still, the message is good. You just gotta read between the lines.

I'm not sure why we should praise a New Zealand pop singer. I'm also not so sure that the "thou shalt not kill" thing applies to pixels. I'm pretty sure that God would have said something like "thou shalt not use algorithms to effect the deletion of pixels through the interaction of a user interface".

And also why we have such a thing as "negligence". They apparently were negligent; either in their maintenance protocols, equipment checks, or, well, making sure that contaminated waste is securely and safely managed. I would say that that warrants a criminal charge, but that's just my opinion.

Nope, no abuse to be found.

The link above details how the NSA fed information to the DEA, and if and when there was a court trial resulting from that information, the DEA manufactured a source for the information so that they never had to admit that they got it from the NSA. The DEA called the process of disguising sources "parallel construction". To quote Reuters from the article:

This is an abuse of the legal system, pure and simple. When you're hiding information from the defense, and potentially the judge and prosecution, you've broken the trial system.

We are seeing abuse, Mr. President.