There's (probably) a fundamental difference, even if you want to equate AI recombination and human inspiration.

Human artists - in theory - used legal means to hear what inspired them. Could be listening to it on broadcast radio, where the right to hear it was arranged through ads. Could be listening to it on a mix tape from a friend, which many countries have laws for. It's not assumed, suspected, or proven that the musician who cites Sting or Ozzy stole the albums they're inspired by.

The tech bros pretty openly did exactly that.

If they ever could've, they would've. That should tell you they couldn't, and the above is the reason, I think.

Almost without fail the people doing that are working within legal rights, doing parody. Comedians or sketch comics. There has been a legal carve-out for those types of activities. Even Elvis impersonators have to be very careful; their actual performance doesn't invoke legal liability but any merch or an Elvis-themed Vegas wedding facility does trigger royalties. It's very different to have a comedian performing "wouldn't it be funny if Famous Person was in this situation" than "we're making more Die Hard movies and Bruce Willis can go ahead and stop us from using his likeness if he can... oh... right... he can't... so eat a bag of dicks."

From US national debt tops $40 trillion: These four charts offer more context and U.S. National Debt by President (2nd link has more complete data and history):

If the current U.S. debt is now about $40T, then Trump is responsible for about 29%, Biden: 21%, Obama: 23%, Bush (W): 12%, Clinton: 4%, Bush (HW): 3%, Reagan: 5%. Of these listed, Republican presidents are responsible for about 49.3% and Democrat presidents, 48.2%.

Met my learn a new word quota for the day, thanks. :-)

In even larger amounts, it works as a laxative, so that's fun.

Personally, I avoid artificial sweeteners, mainly because I dislike their taste, and just try to be mindful of what I eat and the sugar content of those foods.

It's not his money he's spending, so he doesn't care.

Seems like they're pointing out facts. Inconvenient ones for data center builders/owners, but are they wrong? Doesn't seem like it. The alternative is more gaslighting from data center owners -- like Musk, who owns X ...

Can't have China potentially "manipulating ... debate" while data center owners are trying to manipulate citizens and politicians. Well, not all politicians; some are already all in, Trump says communities that oppose data centers are "making a mistake" while some see the writing on the wall, Republicans are breaking with Donald Trump on data centers.

They started with only a few, but wanted to add more an hour later. :-)

Companies pushing AIs rally for action / defense against "rogue AIs". My irony and hypocrisy meters just burned out. Sure. the AI companies could work on this themselves, but they're too busy spending and building trying to beat the others to an undefined Finish Line at some unspecified Future, hoping to actually get wherever they think/hope they're going before the bottoms fall out - financially, politically, resource (land, water, power ...) ... Color me cynical, but I don't think things are going to turn out like they hope it will.

Based on interviews with actual voters that I've seen/read - especially MAGA voters and especially those now regretting their vote - I fail to see any substantial difference compared to the point you're making. It seems even the "educated voter" often only sees/hears/reads what they want to see/hear/read.

Agreed.

This has been tried before - with the ACA mandate (see below). Maybe if a tax credit was offered? I can think of numerous problems either way, mostly practical. The federal government would have to correlate tax return with voter roles and those who actually voted. I don't see that going over well with people, even though voter roles are public. Also, some people may have specific reasons for not voting, like not wanting to end up on jury roles...

It *is* possible though, Australia and 20 other countries, have compulsory voting.

People bitched about having to get health insurance after the ACA was passed or pay a tax, then the 2017 Republican-controlled Congress reduced the tax penalty to $0, and SCOTUS declared the mandate to have insurance unenforceable as a result. The Supreme Court Throws Out the ACA Lawsuit, Not the ACA.

That would be Maine and Nebraska. The other 48 states use winner-take-all. Which hardly seems "representative".

Or at least proportional electoral votes in all states instead of the winner take all that 48 states use - Maine and Nebraska use a proportional formula (described at that link).

Especially childish behavior as the prohibition against speeches is for all politicians.

Or this, so childish. Trump to skip 9/11 remembrance at Ground Zero because they wouldn’t let him give a speech

Well... Trump (still) says "affordability" is a hoax and foreign companies and countries pay the tariffs. The first is demonstrably wrong (just go buy food, gas...), the second is literally wrong (just look it up). He keeps pushing this and his followers keep going along with it. Boggles the mind. The Wharton School must be re-thinking the degree they gave Trump, 'cause it doesn't seem like he earned it...