In other news, people who can afford the best medical care are also more likely to have time and money to visit museums and practice music.

Yes they are. e.g. as mentioned here

The real invasion of privacy -- aside from traffic cams, three letter agencies hoovering up everything that passes through fiber, parallel construction, abuse of the interstate commerce law, permanent emergency bills -- Nevermind. Another invasion of privacy is id.me, wherein to access government services people are forced to send their identity to an unaccountable non-government third party operating under rules not restricted by the constitution.

This relentless focus on whomever's on the Other Team as the problem this election cycle, is the problem.While money flows upward toward the new oligarchy class and corruption rises, you're kept bickering with no clue. But it sure feels great to have a team to root for, doesn't it?

A good password needs to be something a human can type in. Password managers aren't sufficiently secure, robust, universal, or user friendly.

Didn't cry little girl. You could still probably learn to knit or something. I truly believe that you can find some kind of discipline to learn in which you may be competent. Technology just isn't your thing, that's all.

You have to be phenomenally incompetent to suggest that only systems that trust their users are safe. Why have a trust model at all. You constantly amaze me with your incompetence, and you have already set the bar ridiculously low.

The only loser is the customer, for whom these PE-backed, resource starved LLMs will provide terrible service.

It's about privacy, you twit.

That's sort of what Google does now. You try to search, it gives you some AI-generated overview of the topic before providing links. It's occasionally handy but most often infuriating.

No, that's Star Wars.

I agree, after all, you are a human and your attitude is quite dangerous.

It can't, that's just "synergy", the idea that one powerful brand can boost another. In reality it just causes confusion and incorrect assumptions.

Although honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the study was still bumpkis. I can't be bothered sitting down and really reading through it.

That's OK. We are all just forever grateful that you at least took the time to pretend to be an expert anyway!

"Me or you on the street can tell if a car is speeding through "that light", and we can make a decision split second... pull over or slam on the brakes or any number of things."

First of all, it's "You or I on the street", not "Me or you on the street." Second of all, someone should invent self-driving cars!

You are trying to play a semantic war of wits but you are unarmed. You want to define "thinking" as "something only a human can do", then claim computers can't "think." It's a strawman based tautology.