By that argument, why not 2 more things to get government to regulate, why not 3, 4, 5... 10, .... 20, ....100, ... 1000, ... It's a slippery slope we should not get on. The government is not the parent of all citizens, and the citizens are not all children of the government. Be an adult, make your own decisions without the need for helicopter parent to intervene.

Why would you want the government involved in this? Capitalism is so much cheaper than courts, and costs the taxpayers nothing. People who don't like a product simply don't pay for the product. Watching movies at a theater is not mandated by law, nor required for human survival. Next you'll be telling us how all stores should be required by law to stock your favorite flavors of soda. Vote with your money - democracy at its best!

A lot of people think "support chat bot" when they hear AI. If you ever tried resolving an issue with a chat bot, whether AI powered or not, the feelings of anger, resentment, and futility that this leaves you with are very similar to the old phone menu systems, maybe even worse. I for one work in tech, but am not at all surprised people don't want AI in their products today. I work in tech and while I see good applications for AI, I would still steer clear from most products advertising AI, as it is often just shoved in by marketing. This is very similar to "smart" or "connected" devices. Heck, marketing term "smart" today may actually mean both, "internet connected" and "using AI".

Really? Which civilized places? How exactly would that work in those places? Say you want to buy a house, which requires 5,000 labor hours to build. Civilized places would just cut corners and build a lower quality house in 4,000 hours (so maybe skip those fire detectors, skip every 5th nail or screw, etc), but charge you the same money as the home build in 5,000 hours in the past? Or would those civilized places just raise prices of the house to account for the fact that now they need to pay the labor what they used to pay for 40 hours of work, but for only 32 hours, so 25% more per hour?

Notice the subtle change from Elon's original "no one in the car" to "no one behind the steering wheel". That is because there is still a safety driver, just sitting in the front passenger seat. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Fb...

If AI means companies can operate with significantly lower headcounts, does this mean there will be more competition due to lower barriers to entry? Using an extreme example, if you could run all of Amazon with just 100 humans and a bunch of datacenters, wouldn't there be VC's funding competitors to get a slice of Amazon's pie?

Absolutely touch screens take more mental effort by the driver to operate than physical, dedicated function buttons. Even worse when they start moving controls farther from the driver's line of sight. However, no Porsche Taycan, current model or past models, has physical climate control buttons, so perhaps this was just a hallucination from the AI that (co)wrote the article?

Free account for human, personal, non-commercial usage, negotiable subscription price for all businesses. Give Google search a subscription for $1 a year if you can properly license the usage for search only and not AI. Perplexity price will be much, much higher of course. This would be no different than a lot of products nowadays. It doesn't even have to be ultra secure enforcement, any scraper hacking it can be sued under DMCA for some outrageous compensation (say $1M per scraped page, maybe more). Sue the hacker scraper with least money first to get the precedent onto the books, then watch the settlements roll in (cheaper than retraining the AI without your content, since it's not easy to just back it out of AI's neural nets - can't "un-ring the bell"). Maybe use Oracle model, get multi-year subscription commitments in exchange for dropping DMCA charges.

Run your own LLM to get you through all the levels of chatbots, let you know when it's reached a human.

Ok, by that logic all music by dead or retired artists is the same as AI - you might like it, but can't go see the band play, right?

If content creators become unable to monetize the content, they will just stop creating content. AI companies will likely have to start paying to create the content, then try to wall it off so that competing AI's don't get access to it. I know AI scraping other AIs for training data is already an issue. Somehow AI companies argue that anything on the web is fair use, except scraping the web output from their AI, which is somehow different, protected from fair use.

Why not? If it costs $20 for each student to be personally interview to verify their ID (similar function as a public notary), that's very little compared to the cost of fraud at the level described here. I'll tell you what, if the government pays me half of what they say they are being defrauded for, I'll pay for the identifications myself - no cost to the government, as long as the government pays me half of the difference between what they claim they are losing to ghost students today vs. what when I'm paying to ID the students. In other words, I'd work on commission, I have 50% of savings to the government, zero other costs.

There is no reason for any application to become an unrestricted web server for the local browser or any other app. It's an obvious hole which should have showed up in a threat modeling of the app access schemes (does Android do any, or it is a free-for-all, whatever gets me the fanciest demo type project). Any apps trying to communicate via any listening sockets should require explicit user permissions. There should also be check in the browsers which disallow localhost access embedded in external pages - this is no different than disallowing external pages to read any arbitrary file on a local file system. How was this missed in browser security threat modeling?

While I agree than AI can seemingly replace new grads in some jobs, so this will be contributing to higher grad unemployment, are there other factors at play here? It could also be the current uncertain economy making employers cautious. Could it be dropping preparedness levels? I personally interviewing new grads I have noticed the average skill level dropping last few years, It might the pandemic effect, where everyone somehow got 90% in all their classes, or courses like math were getting dropped from degrees like nursing (need more nurses, math too hard), or STEM classes curriculum were being diluted with non-STEM material, like social justice (e.g. biology class that one of my kids took concentrated on usage of plants by different cultures' food and who appropriated whose culture by adopting their food). It could also be AI usage effect by students too - students use AI for everything so they never developed and practiced the ability to think and solve problems for themselves. I suspect it's a combination of those and other factors.

I hear Porsche China market share has cratered, so perhaps that is where the customers who used buy a 911 GT3RS, drive it 5 miles, then try to flip it, went? Heck, I've seen 10 year old Porsches with ~600 miles on them - all shiny, covered in PPF, their owners hoping to make money on their investment.