Citation please?

They just publish hype fed to the by CEOs of Anthropic and the like, who have slop to sell.

Why not interview Emily Bender and review "The AI Con"?

Even when you delete a social media account, the information is generally preserved. You'll probably be required to disclose all social media accounts which have at some time been under your control under penalty of perjury. Even if you can't unlock those old accounts, the information might still be accessible to the government. You might be required to sign a waiver granting all social media companies permission to disclose all information (including deleted posts).

I haven't seen the details of this new policy, but I'm sure you'll be required to fill out a form which says to list all social media accounts that are under your control, and at the bottom of the form will be a space to sign your name with the note (standard on federal forms) that it is an offense under section whatever of the United States Code to knowingly provide false information on the form punishable by a fine of not more than $250,000 and a prison sentence of not more than five years. So, you're taking a big risk. If, at any future time, there's an investigation which reveals the existence of undisclosed social media accounts which existed at the time you filled in the form, you are a felon and could be imprisoned.

Exactly. The headline is wrong. It says "Facial recognition error" and there was no facial recognition error. It correctly identified her. She was wrongly added to the database.

Yes. In five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years, AI will look nothing like it does now. Look how much progress has been made in the last three years!

But it's not criminal to declare your income. Only to not declare it.

Neither do humans if they are engaging in stalking behavior. The issue here should really be about the speech and not the agent which communicates it. If the speech would not be illegal for a human to utter, there is no reason it should be treated differently if "spoken" by A.I. software. Computer software is considered speech under the First Amendment, and that should cover any communications by the software. But the First Amendment doesn't cover all speech. Inciting crime, uttering threats, stalking and harassing, libel and slander, are all categories of speech not protected by the First Amendment. A.I. should not be treated differently than humans in that regard.

And those arguing in favor of these lawsuits seem to want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they say A.I. bots have agency and as non-humans aren't protected by the first amendment. But one cannot collect damages from a computer as a computer owns no capital. So, when it comes to the lawsuits, those same people say the computers don't have agency, and the human owners should be financially responsible for damages. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

Do you really want schools to be policing your children's Internet use off campus?

That is simply incorrect. Companies have free speech rights too. Do you think they shouldn't. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and CNN are all companies. Should they not have free speech rights?

They are an insurance company. They need that information to properly insure drivers and comply with state laws.

Isn't this broadcast flag all over again?

When you see lights in the sky, you cannot tell how far they are, and therefore you cannot tell how fast or slow they are moving. If you don't know the size of the object it's impossible to judge it's speed or your distance from it.

It's really amazing what happens when people look up and see airplanes flying at night and they think it's drones. I live in NJ and every video and/or photo I saw of a "drone" was just an airliner going to Newark airport, The news media just hyped this up for no good reason.

According to this article they can't say how many GPUs they actually have, as that would expose violation of US export law.