In the US, sue them for damages. Wasting time, mental anguish (I always liked that one - impossible to disprove), etc.

I mean that they often do nothing that really makes a difference to the success of the company. I have worked for a company that had an open CEO slot and nothing really changed for the better or worse.

Or simply unnecessary

Perhaps they do, but the keyword is fake.

They sometimes do, but that is what LLMs are primarily trained on. They understand in a mechanical way words and grammar, but they have no idea what they really mean. They can string them together in sentences, but that is all they really do.

"Re: what is stopping the AI from testing dependencies?" -- Who knows why these systems do anything? They are black boxes.

Given that the current "AI" systems make up things a good percentage of the time, how could you ever trust a mathematical proof that they created. Any important mathematical proof uses previously proven results as a starting point. It seems likely that an AI faced with a problem and not having the required tools would simply hallucinate them.

If they are not struggling to get by, it is because they were born with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouths to begin with. That is the whole point of the article, only the super wealthy can afford these so-called elite schools.

So don't go to these so-called elite institutions. There are plenty of less expensive schools that will provide just as good an education, especially at the undergraduate level. People want to go to these schools in the hope making contacts that will aid them later in life, not for the education. This is mostly a false hope anyway. The people you want to get in with, will stay with their own in crowd and have nothing to do with you.

The bar exam is normally a function of the state bar association not the state government. No body owns anything. You have to pass the exam to practice law in the state. This actually dates back to the early days of the country when many lawyers got their education by apprenticeship rather than at a school. It is supposed to insure that, if you hire a lawyer, they will know what they are doing. You can take the exam multiple times (apparently few people pass on the first try in most states). Of course, considering some of the goings on in our legal system (including the Supreme Court) one has to wonder how well the system works.

I am more interested in the fact that 48 questions came from a first-year law student exam. Wouldn't missing even one of these raise questions about the exam takers knowledge? A certain level of basic knowledge would seem to be implied by merely having a law degree before even taking the exam.

Letting other people use your car in the US can invalidate your insurance. Theoretically, the insurance company has to have a list of all approved users. They use the demographics of the users to set rates.

There is unfortunately a nearly unlimited supply of people who are in desperate need. Refugees from various wars or persecuted minorities, for example. Small subsistence farmers who have lost their livelihoods to changing climate and soon people made redundant by LLMs (that probably cannot do their jobs but replace them anyway.

Pretty much all of the big tech companies are monopolies or trying to become one. The problem is that it is a lot easier to create a monopoly than to break one up.

He is unless he is creating an illegal monopoly. If he is, then the courts can split up the company.