ChatGpt says this works, so we better obey our AI mastersand make this work.

Hm, maybe I can convince ChatGpt to tell everyone that short, fat guys with bad knees are attractive.

Well, if you're correct, then it will be a total failure. And you *could* be correct, as that would be the easiest way to their stated result.

I think you're wrong, though it might depend on where you live. I believe that in the US owning a CD doesn't give you the right to commercial activities involving playing that CD. You can argue that it *should*, but I don't believe that it does.

Every decent song has ALWAYS been full of plagiarism. Liszt copied music from the Gypsies. Irish Bards used to be *forbidden* (by their guild) to create new tunes. They were only allowed to set new words to old tunes. Copyright law is an abomination in the realm of music. (In some other places I'd argue that it was just too long, but in music it just shouldn't exist at all.)

I'd often prefer that they didn't have any, but that depends on how loudly the people at the next table are talking.

Better still, my credit card company can generate a new "virtual card" on demand for me with a new number, plus an expiration date that I specify and a spending limit.

Furthermore, never use a debit card if you can use a credit card. The protections on debit cards are all at the discretion of the bank, while credit cards have protections defined by law.

.. venues still need to pay PROs for live performances: the songwriters still need to be paid. And, even if the artist claims to perform only self-written music, the PROs will attempt to find a bar or two that can be heard in some commercially licensed music.

Yes, I know that 4,500 annually is a lot less than hiring a live musician, but:

1) Don't complain about how your attempt to avoid paying technology to do something much cheaper than a person is now costing your more money.

2) For a chain with say 100 hotels/bars, it is not unreasonable to hire 3 groups of live musicians for 8 hour shifts and broadcast it live at all locations.

Games that people understand the game rules have people that play logically.

Games that people do not understand the rules cannot be played logically and must instead be played using non-logical methodology.

Note, a lot of the theoretician's claims of 'illogical' behavior is caused by people's natural mistrust of other people. (I.E. those money now vs money later studies do not take into account the people not trusting the scientist to actually pay them later. The scientists think the pay later is 100% guaranteed, when the participant knows his uncle still hasn't payed him that $5 he promissed.)

Of all the crappy Executive Orders the President(s) have given, this is a simple thing that any President should have done:

"We will under no circumstances sign any purchase order that prevents or impairs our ability to repair the equipment we buy, rent, license or otherwise pay for use. Agreeing to such a contract is an act of sabotage against the United States and will be prosecuted by military tribunal."

Both of these companies have near monopolies and should be broken up.

No reason why Facebook should own any other social media company, doing so eliminates what little competition exists among them.

Similarly no reason why a single company should make all glasses.

I am sure someone smart said instead of assigning people to overtime, ask for volunteers - meaning volunteer to be paid overtime.

Then some moron said "Oh, you mean volunteer for no pay? Sure, we can do that!"

That second guy should be fired for immense stupidity.

Companies like to pretend they are families. Families do not fire you.

You're confusing motivation with intelligence. They are separate things.

OTOH, the definition given is silly.

An AGI would be something that could learn anything. Such a thing is probably impossible. Certainly people don't meet that measure.

There's probably no standard format for the input data. It's already been claimed that Google could have checked if the cases exist. (I've never tried, so that *could* be wrong.)

Your model of an AI is wrong. EVERYTHING an AI says is a "hallucination", it's just that a lot of those hallucinations match reality. Even "Stocastic Parrot" is closer to correct than "An AI just regurgitates what it finds in its data set".

(P.S.: Most of your memories are wrong. They're also "hallucinations" that sort of "match reality". One test of this is to list everything that's in a room you haven't been in for awhile (say at least 10 minutes) and where in the room it was located. Then go to the room and notice all the things you forgot, or added, or misplaced. No excuses allowed like "but that wasn't important".)