That is simply the logical conclusion of unfettered laissez-faire capitalism, in which the corporation that manages to put themselves in the most advantageous position (usually translating to producing widgets at the lowest price) wins. Don't like that the government is aiding and abetting the private sector? Tough luck, the US does the same thing in the form of incentives like reduced taxes (not to mention outright stakes in companies, e.g. US and Intel), so don't complain that China does it, too. As an American, I want my cheap cars, and if they have to come from China, so be it.

What people should be asking is how much of a given xylitol-sweetened product would they need to consume to get to that "highest level in the blood" so they know what a reasonable limit of consumption would be. E.g. if it takes chewing 100 pieces of gum per day to get to that level, then I'm pretty safe if I only chew ten pieces.

Yeah, what kind of idiot would write that? What were they thinking? Are they stupid, or are they just ignorant?

They should have named the hotspot "FBI Surveillance Van". Surely nobody would object to that?

Ignore that innocent looking guy in a hard hat and construction vest carrying a clipboard. I'm sure he's authorized to flip those switches and turn those knobs and open those valves.

It won't be long before a rogue AI goes all Robert Morris and wreaks widespread havoc. Bets on whether it'll happen by accident or on purpose?

Gender Studies teacher?

Ordinary citizen gets caught spearphishing: prosecution. Company gets caught spearphishing: nothing.

They will cool the water with a refrigerator, which will ensure the system will be carbon neutral, right?

There are selfish genes, and there are stupid genes. Guess which ones make up Dawkins' DNA?

This should have been the first, and only, comment in the thread. Especially because LLMs don't "think" or "feel" (or for that matter do anything at all) while idle, which is pretty much a requirement to be considered "conscious".

How does a chatbot know what is a delusion and what isn't?

How does a delusional human distinguish between good and bad advice from a machine that is prone to hallucinate?

It would be better if Satoshi Nakamoto sued him.

The company also highlights some of the benefits of the switch, including improved security, RCS support, AI features, and better multi-device connectivity.

Wait, AI features are a benefit? Haha, no.

Indeed, when prosecutors tested Claude by asking whether it could give legal advice, the bot advised them to "consult with a qualified attorney."

It's astounding they bothered asking Claude that question. They are pre-supposing Claude is qualified to answer the question in the first place. What would they have done if Claude had said yes? Claude is no more qualified than a toaster to give legal advice. If it's a question of legality, then Claude is *not* the one to ask; the court should know the answer to that question without having to consult anybody but the current laws.