Or they'll sell the "anonymized data", including calculated bra sizes.

This is a pretty invasive move on Comcast's part. Only the lawyers will win this one.

There are no barriers to how humans get "replaced" by AI. Are we here to benefit humanity or benefit tech bro stock prices?

The whole marketing campaign behind AI was targeted at CEOs to cut their labor costs. This makes them salivate like Pavlov's dogs.

Did the marketing appeal in a "work smarter, not harder" way? No. It was aimed at laying off huge swaths of workers. Not just worker bees, but the creatives in coding, systems management, development, but also other worker bees.

Not everyone needs creativity in their work, although it helps.

People now pump their own fuel in most states. You now walk up to a checkout and scan your own stuff. You order at a screen at McDonalds. Heaven forbid walking into a Starbucks and buying a coffee at the counter.

All of these are small cuts, and ultimately, fealty to the stock price on any given day. Job creation through AI isn't quite the goal. Lowered cost-of-goods is the goal, and the goal of capitalism in general. Do the profits filter down to worker bees? Unlikely.

Take Internet search as an example. AI engines seek to trap the thousand results and deliver you a neat package of "an answer" even if it's wrong. Any stupid AI engine can deliver believable results, subverting the thousand others that have the same answers-- perhaps authoritative, even trustable result.

Yep. Trust is built.

1. Rapidly iterative and successive models, all of them looking like dot-zero problem children do not imbue trust.

2. Rapid inter-cross dealing tech companies, all fighting with each other for dominance using the dot-zero madness does not imbue trust.

3. Models that fight each other, jump barriers and hack into companies at will, does not engender trust.

4. Digesting rivers, streams, farmland, for data centers whose parts can't even be purchased, does not build trust.

5. Creating turf wars between the models of different countries does not earn trust.

6. Creating incredible parts shortages and pumping component profits does not become trustworthy for supply chain users.

7. Bozos like Sam Altman and his merry-go-round of allies makes many people very queasy.

8. Jamming Co-Pilot down the throats of users, changing ToS to fit more mad infiltration goals to the desktop does not make people want to trust Microsoft, specifically.

9. Inability to show that AI helps, rather than lays off workers does not build trust.

The man is a fool, and so are those that become hypnotized by early success, ignoring pretty frightening failures in AI and the chains of monopoly grabs that are going with it, not to mention data center densities that are clearly unsupportable, financed by pump-and-dump Wall Street fans.

Humanity? Did you say humanity? War, even tech turf wars, leave many suffering humans in their wake. That didn't used to be true; computers were enablers, not *disablers*.

The Internet was built on gamers, pR0n, and dubious fun.

In its foundling days, these were university colleagues and DARPA. Social media were weird things, now long gone through Darwinian evolution. It's become highly monetized, and not really within the control of end-users.

Worse the dearth of public policy makes it the Wild Wild West on a scale out that only Wall Street might've imagined (and monetized).

So what if there are dick pics? Others might get useful work done and not be dependent on the micro-costs that make users the product. It's refreshing. Yes, it takes discipline. You have to hold your nose.

But you're holding your nose, rather than drowning in X, FB, Insta, ad nauseum. Give it a chance.

And those solutions don't work.

You can do all the DNS snooping with your MTA agent, and spam removal doesn't work.

You can search for plentiful buzzwords and twit-filter trends, and you'll still miss a huge swath of goo.

This "they" you speak of thrives on user rage disguised as "engagement". They monetize it, and instead of actually spending money on things like abuse@ account monitoring, or IP filtering, they let it all slide, leading to the cesspool we have today, uniformly.

This is marked to 0, but it's true.

What were once price/earnings ratios, and other useful metrics have been:

- Pumped to insane P/E
- Sold to data centers no one's built and many vehemently dislike with
- Unstable public funding support in some data center site acquisitions + poured in capital for
- AI that routinely breaks all barriers to hack into other systems while
- Racing against other models to do still worse based on
- BS and uncurated input data
- For absolutely unproven general use modeling by an unsuspecting business herd desiring to save COGS because
- Lowering labor costs is a religion to them because
- They must feed shareholders while the infrastructure vendor, NVIDIA, sells future annuities based on future deliveries for future products that they have circularly sold like great zeppelins of yore.

This historic scam of inflated value falls to the ground when only one part of this dastardly plan is punctured. You thought the crash of '29 was big? Look at the numbers right now. This is a fool's game from one end to the other.

Only the money men will make any loot, and a lot of empty buildings and food bank lines are going to follow. You can't grow corn in a data center; the concrete floors are too tough for even John Deere.

If you try to map this to evolution of brains, consider the biggest problem.

Where garbage in == garbage out, much more garbage in == much more garbage out. Size of a model doesn't inherently make it more useful, just as a huge volume of brain mass doesn't make you hyper-intelligent.

This isn't even able to be mapped to Nyquist thinking, or von Neumann. Bigger isn't better; better is better.

The bird rubric is also a red herring.

This about protecting the all-important petrochemical industry, just as removal of EV emphasis and the 100% Chinese EV tax and ban protects Texas votes.

Those votes tip the balance of power in DC fundamentally and directly.

German auto makers are at at critical time; sales are down, competition is up, reliability seems worse in comparison to their competition.

BMW subscriptions are one way to make cheap (low COGS revenue). This hurts every German automaker. The impression is that such madness will find its way into the Porsche-Audi-VW chain, and makes every new German car suspect.

With the entry cost now almost out of reach, once the German auto industry starts to collapse, banks (financing both vendor and consumer) also becomes questionable, the labor strife higher, and one of the great components of the success of the EU, weaker.

BMW is unlikely to listen. They're scared and with good reason. But these "innovations" will hurt them, a perfect storm of financial disaster blooming.

Not a red herring. You're looking at your ability to make a measurement and determination by observation. The individual, however, knows their own context is not the gender they were assigned by observation at birth.

Post-adult maturation, the hormonal levels can have an influence, but as mentioned up-thread, these are more edge cases, rather than the resting state of the individual experiencing gender dysphoria.

Your definition of dysphoria also is in err.

Please take your own anecdotal samples of what this feels like, by talking with an individual experiencing the effect. There are commonalities you'll soon become aware of. Digest those commonalities; the dysphoric are often frank about what they're feeling. Remember, they're feeling this; you're not. I'm not. They are. For them, it's real. Perhaps you'll start to feel/understand what's going on, and the possible paths that lead to the desire for gender change. I'm not God; I don't judge those whose physio/psychological path let to the need. Most all (there are exceptions) who affirm by surgery/etc their desired gender do very well in life, subject to rejection by those unable to understand their context.

These relate to the experience of gender. All of us experience what gender is to us, manifest in obvious through very subtle sensation and navigation through a normal day.

There are primary and secondary hormones that are pretty obvious in how they manifest from conception through puberty. Some people don't get the right doses, according to what might be termed a "normal" life cycle through those 23+ years.

This happens during periods of stress, malnutrition, trauma, the reasons can be many. A dose or two is missed, or conversely, overly-expressed for same/similar reasons.

A sufficient body of research evidence demonstrates that the brain will develop differently based on doses rendered through that period.

Let's go back to the perception by each individual of their gender and gender identity. This is a mixture of physical manifestation, perception of gender association (and therefore also, rejection). These have varying degrees of identity strength.

I'm also leaving out physiological mismatch, where hermaphrodite physiological manifestation enters into play, or ovaries found in men, or manifestations of other-gender physiology. That's not in the picture I'm describing; not enough data exists for evidence of trends in this discussion, which focuses on hormonal dose periods from conception through adult maturity.

The King of Atlantis is not real, but gender dysphoria is real, documented, and exists, just as varying degrees of sexual attractiveness preference exists, and is all around us.

It wasn't self-hypnosis, self-deception. There are those that feel that they are not their gender assigned at birth, and it's real to them, and therefore, it's a reality for them. This dysphoria is difficult for those experiencing it, because it's out of the norm. It's real to them, and has physiological and psychological origins.

Before the gender dysphoric are permitted to surgically affirm an alternate gender, it's requisite, at least in the USA, to go through quite a bit of psychological testing to ensure that the origins of the dysphoria doesn't have origins in other neurosis or psychosis, or physical manifestation in hormone over-expression.

The shape of the brain is a data point to help people understand that the sentiments and expression of dysphoria have real origins in physio-psychological realities; what they feel is real to them, and we're not necessarily the gender assigned at birth; that XX or XY at birth indeed can go sideways from "the norm" and create individuals who are gender-different from the norm.

In rare cases, the dysphoria can be detected as a physiological problem and "corrected" to strengthen the desired gender identity of an individual. Hormone replacement, augmentation, tumor removal, and more can be used to strengthen gender identity. Far more often than not, there's no physiological problem-- and it's not often a psychological problem, either-- although it can be. Every individual is different.

Some gender dysphoria comes at the hand of sexual trauma. And there is a preponderance of those with gender identity needs that has neither a physiological or psychological origin. None at all. Somehow, their body gender needs modifications to match their minds.

Much media furor has injected fabulousness and worse into the discussion, with instinctive reaction instead of skepticism and advocacy where it's needed. If an individual faces gender dysphoria, their lives can become very difficult because of the instinctive rejection they're subject to, and the hostility of those that can't accept them in what appears to be a non-normal societal role.

Let's take a base XX or XY pair. Given an equal distribution of hormonal dosing from conception through puberty (ending at roughly age 23), That brain goes through well-known, periodic hormonal doses as it develops.

It's proven that given high/low/absent doses through these regular periods, the brain's shape will turn out measurably different in size.

Additionally, primary and secondary sexual characteristics will express until the initial adult phase manifests.

This means that there are 17 different types of brains possible, this having been measured with a good S=. What can be learned from this is that given no other anatomical influences, the same brain can have 17 diff outcomes. In terms of other anatomical expression, there are other variations. These variations in combination with neurological expression then comprise different people from the same gene pairs.

How are they different people? They know no differently, just as you're sure of your own body, sexuality, perhaps mental state.

The dysphoria manifests in different ways, often social comparison, but additionally sexual attraction, sexual sense of being, These brains and bodies are different combinations. Measured against attraction, sense of being, and the basic instinct of sexual interaction, dysphoria can ensue. People desire to live in their sense of dignity, and that extends to sexual identity. A clear number of apparently male and female people believe their gender is different from their anatomical appearance.

For them, they're right. And we're right to believe them. Denying this amounts to a mistake on the part of the observer. Socially, this may be a grievous mistake, if one believes in civility.

I have plentiful neurological research references to backup what I contend. You perceive your gender in your brain and body. The experience of gender dysphoria is real for those that experience this. It's provable and has been proven that differing hormonal doses from the same base XY or XX set produce differently shaped brains. It's real.

It's not a rationalization, it's a reality for those that sense this. What and how they deal with it in various cultures has a historical basis that's part lore, and part documentation of the individual, and those perceiving the effects on the individual.

Some will get it, others will not. We try; some have open ears, others do not. Closed ears are still worth it, as they might not be totally closed. For some, it requires a repeated effort. I can be thick at times, too.

Bias is a moveable feast.

Go deeper.

Understand the hormonal doses, and what they do, from conception through late puberty. What happens when they're out of norm. How this forms up to seventeen different brain types from the same 23 pairs of chromosomes-- and that's IF these are normal XY or XX pairs.

Brain and body sex are threaded, and the hormonal doses you get from conception through age 23 can alter the path of how you sense your gender. A standard issue XY, as an example, can have brain-development-altering consequences from the numerous normal doses of hormone mixtures as that XY person grows. XX is similar, if with fewer found permutations. And that's for normal pairs.

Abnormal pairs are another tangent. Neurodiversity caused by other factors will amplify perceived alteration in the standard variance of hormones.

The tl;dr is it's not that easy. People who sense dysphoria really feel it. Other people can't feel it, and have no context to understand the possible permutations through these cycles. XX and XY are just the starting points towards gender development and subsequent identity.