Difficult how? They have plenty of money to give back to share holders. They get plenty of money from adding extra fees. They spend tons on lobbying the government so that they don't need to do anything important. I agree that the upstarts are going to have a really difficult time, but let's not pretend that the reason utilities don't improve the grid is because of some "difficulty."

Exactly. The whole "how will we pay for this?" mantra only applies when it benefits peons. When dealing with corporate bailouts, it is not a problem.

But what if you made an AI fake and were open about the fact that it is a fake? What if you made an AI fake of Elvis eating your ice cream, and said that "Fake Elvis" loves our ice cream? I wonder. It could be considered impersonation. I really don't know how all of this is going to shake out.

I disagree. I love the Copilot. It does sometimes spew out redundant and even irrelevant information. That's certainly true, but even then, it includes the links that you can check out yourself. For me, I only go through the links part of the time, so it saves me a lot. Yes, I am lazy in a different way. My favorite part is the Generate page summary feature. I once loaded up a 50 page contract and asked it questions. It got a question wrong, but it provided the link for me to go to the appropriate location for the information. It was better than doing a word search on the document.

I don't know. I'm not sure if the goal is 100%. Maybe it would be like copy protection. Yes, it will be broken, and yes, it is not a perfect system even in theory. But it may cut down casual copying. Even if we can identify the majority of deepfakes, I think that would be a win. I don't think we can 100% identify anything, so I just don't think that should be the goal.

It's mine? Thanks! Btw, your multiple question marks make you look cool. Well done.

Are you saying that you should believe everything about engineering problems, or fraud trials, or medical care, or defending against missile attacks? Or are you saying that all of those are perfect? Because both comments are absurd. Good thing you posted as AC, because this is embarrassing. Next time, let chatgpt generate the response for you.

The all or nothing thinking is not a good approach to anything in life, and Chatgpt is no exception. Humans "hallucinate" as well. Only we use words like wrong, bs, lying. If you trust another human being 100%, you will lose out a lot in life. I think chatgpt is incredible too, but it's a tool to help you. The problem may be your use of it, and not the product itself. And the next time a human tells you something, you really shouldn't assume that it is 100% correct either.

The stimulus checks were issued to 2020 and 2021. Do you really think increasing inflation was caused by the checks 2 years ago? I hear this a lot, but it doesn't make sense to me.

This is exactly why we need to be careful about AGI. When humans have such disregard for other human life, computers will learn from that. They may learn that humans are expendable all together, since that is a common theme on the internet.

I agree that nothing disingenuous there at all. The problem is the bigger picture, where the needs of Microsoft might not be in alignment with the needs of humanity. Or more generally, the need to make money vs the need to service humanity. These are not necessarily opposing goals, and certainly are not mutually exclusive, but the potential to sacrifice the needs of humanity in order to make money is clearly there. You may disagree with that premise, and that is fine, but that seems to be the point of the post.

Every single time something not favorable to corporations is introduced, there are always some people to claim that it will be disastrous for the nation. It never is. Never.

If we were to make a meme, it would be that money tends to corrupt, and infinite money corrupts infinitely.

A more appropriate answer is to follow with a middle finger. Respect is earned, and should not just be shoved down people's throats.

This seems to be a version of the Etymological fallacy. I'm not sure if there is a more accurate term though. Basically, just because the origin of the copyright law was to encourage creators to publish, it does not follow that this is the current purpose of the law. In fact, it is overtly clear that current copyright law is just a money grab. Yes, it is ludicrous, but the law is currently made by the elite, and applies to the peons.