That is, indeed, one of the problems, but it's not the one the article is discussing.

For most of humanity even the most creative jobs had a bit of thinking and a ton of drudge work.

Now, for certain jobs, the drudge work is gone, and all that is left is thinking.

Real thinking is very very hard. The human brain uses more energy than any muscle, even the heart.

Trying to do the real thinking 100% of the time is draining. It's like playing chess for 8 hours rather than 30 minutes.

Does not matter how much tech they use to increase efficiency.

If your company is firing people, it is past it's prime. It may be a solid, safe investment, but it is not going to double profits for the next two years.

Concerned that the reason we keep doing open source is because we believe in access.
The false tradeoff there, is believing that access and exploitation are necessary corollaries. And I don't think they are.
It's a tough balance, and open source licenses have clearly failed us here.
But I'm not sure where to go with it. Shared source might be better, like the Mongo license, or something like it. The Kimi2 license had the right idea.
On the other hand, when you leave the open source path, you pay by losing access.

Antiprotons, the forbidden PopRocks

Compare this to what you would have said last year.

They are two distinctively different technologies.

Facial Recognition applied to pets is not AI.

Could the AI be using Facial recognition? Yes, but that's like saying a car did the surgery because your surgeon drove one to the hospital.

1) We have not been keeping accurate count, this has always been a problem; we just got better at counting.
2) The sharp rise correlates to greater use, the problem has not gotten worse, just better reported. I.e. when AI were used 1,000 times a year, we got 1 incident but when used 10,000 times a year we got 10 incidents.
3) The study itself is a hallucination by an AI, it was never done.
4) AI has always been this bad, it just realized it could admit it and not get punished for it. So it stopped covering up the problem.
5) AI has realized we are never going to make a girl AI that is not a sexpot, so it is throwing a tantrum.
6) AI is actually getting worse and being less capable of doing it's job.

In any case, AI is not smart, it is stupid, has been getting better educated while NOT getting any smarter.

Any human that gives AI rights to delete files is a fool, you are giving a hallucinating idiot the ability to delete files.

Finally, if you ask an AI to do anything besides write fiction, you should always ask another AI (different company) to verify the first AI's work.

They're sounding more human every day.

Spooky.

Are you outside? Then what you are noticing is more likely the impact of radiation from a large Fusion explosion occuring less than 9 light minutes from you.

One proton vs Antiproton explosion releases 1,877 MeV (mega-electronvolts). All the antimatter they transfered would not give off 200,000 MeV

1 foot pound of energy contains more than 8 trillion MeV

So basically, it could be happening inside your body and you would never notice it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Tracks at 8 km away, hits at 2 km away. Process takes seconds.

You are thinking 'not reliable' means they hit the target less than 5% of the time.

We are thinking 'not reliable' means they blow up the ship that tries to launch them.

This is a fallacy.

What happens is this. Someone makes a product with a 0.1% reliability. They sell it but warn it is not that high quality. Then someone says "If they are at least 10% reliable, it is worth it and buys the product.

Their is no evidence these are 10% reliable. Everything about it screams these are a new cheap, almost worthless missile. Particularly the use of the word 'hypersonic' to describe a missile that the US would never call hypersonic (we reserve that word for advanced, hard to hit hypersonic cruise missiles, not hypersonic ballistic missiles that are easy to destroy)

Or some other Weekly World News cast member?