Perhaps it sent a single message from one user to another. That qualifies as "like slack or teams" in marketing speak. Marketing press release is ready - not intended for party poopers like you actually wanting to see the results for themselves.

So now ChatGPT will have a financial incentive to push products OpenAI makes the most money on, essentially becoming an AI sales agent. It will be hard to prove if something is an LLM hallucination or just a plain sales pitch, perhaps both - we can call those "profitable hallucinations". There will be no motivation for OpenAI to curb those of course.

Insurance have payoff caps and possibly clauses for ensuring some minimum level of security. If you leave your car running with keys in the car and someone steals it, your insurance might actually deny your claim. Same may be true for cyber-insurance, so perhaps their insurance company is still investigating how such an attack, which disabled the whole huge company for weeks, could have even happened.

They don't have to pay. They can wait and base their criticism on what people who did pay say. No different than any other product. You can criticize the latest iPhone without ever having put your hand on an iPhone, but perhaps your criticism would be worth a lot more to potential customers if you actually own one, or at least have used one for some time. You can also criticize all phones as a category too, but even then, your criticism would be more credible if you ever owned one, rather than repeating what others say about it.

Why not? I'd be happy if my kids could "wring a few more dollars out of my corpse". If you don't want your kids or other family to get anything from you after you pass on, just write a will to ensure all those "wrung dollars" go to the cause of your choice (could be a charity, or could be Vladimir Putin if that is who you choose, or a trust you setup to send your ashes as far into the universe as the money from your corpse will pay for). Either way, you get to choose. Heck, if you're really smart and in demand, you can probably get an advanced payment on digital you before you die, so you can spend it yourself any way you please. Do you see a problem with that?

So to sum up, US companies just want cheaper labor. Squeezing existing workers to work 996 for the same money as 955 is just a way to dilute their effective hourly cost to the company.

You are absolutely correct. I speak a couple of languages fluently today and some others partially (some of those I was fluent in those during my youth, but today I'm nowhere near fluent, sometimes struggling to understand more than half of what I hear, even worse on the speaking side). It never seizes to amaze me how much is lost in translation. A good example for me is watching a movie in one language I am fluent in, while reading closed captions in another language I also happen to be fluent in, shows me how much "depth" is lost in translation - this is a huge amount of information/content. Heck, I've found a few phrases between languages I speak that are nearly untranslatable, unless you're willing to take a 4-5 word phrase and turn it into a multi-sentence paragraph. It's not just me, I've asked other native speaker to translate those same phrases, they were just as stumped.

Perhaps you should have put the guy in a headlock until he agreed for you to pay, or until he passed out, at which point you pay anyways. Maybe that would have impressed your ex. ;-)

When it happens to Zuck on stage, they fix it. When it happens to every-day users, good luck getting a fix.

Is this really something new, or people just noticed? I saw Greece mentioned in the summary. I spent a couple of years living in Greece about 3 decades ago, and when I was there, they always had mandatory work stoppage for all outdoor/uncooled work sites mid-day on hot days. Heck, they had noise regulations akin to night time restrictions preventing making loud noises (like construction) during those mid-day siesta times.

If random kids can hack the systems on a date by guessing passwords or other simple methods, the deployed IT security solution at the institution is essentially worthless. Imagine what a skilled hacker could do. Given the successful kid-dare hacks, state actors already own those networks and probably use them to hack other places. I hope the institutions don't pay real money for such IT security (then again, this could explain it).

The stores change prices all the time on all kinds of items. Have you heard of sales, clearances, price increases, or simply the same items offered at very different prices from different stores, no? Pretend Apple in this case just ran a large sale event selling $599 iPhone for $299 - are there indignant people suing stores every time the store runs a sale, is there a surge of lawsuits every Black Friday perhaps?

I think you're kidding yourself, akin to people who think the government sets prices of all items in all stores - it makes it easier for their brain to understand the law perhaps (and those people ignore the fact that the same item is available at very different prices at different stores). You claim that the iPhone market is regulated - can you show me where in the US the regulation it says that manufacturers of goods, and/or stores, cannot change prices of devices like iPhones at will?

As for people wanting to pay less, of course that is true of all markets, including the stock market, and yet the stock market doesn't collapse just because each sale is an open market transaction - even though you'd call it "crazy" and "precluding inbuild assumption that people do not want to pay more". I've lived in a communist country before where the government in fact set prices for everything. Everything was very affordable, on paper. The reality was that shelves were literally empty, and in order to buy anything you had to pay bribed, or barter, or swap favors, whatever you want to call it, the prices were essentially market prices after you add the cost of obtaining the item at the low price set by the government. You simply cannot go around the laws of supply and demand.

I think you're confused about what I said. The way the market works is that each sale happens at a price that the seller and the buyer agree on for that one sale. The next sale is a whole new agreement on the price, between the seller and the buyer (which may or may not be the same buyers). In this case, anyone who bought an iPhone at $599 paid what they agreed to pay and got what they agreed to receive for that price - in other words, the buyer got exactly what they agreed to pay for, at the price they agreed to pay. There was no price guarantee as part of that transaction. The fact that someone else got the same thing for $399 10 minutes later is absolutely irrelevant. If the price instead went up to $699, the same indignant woman would not be suing to pay more. Welcome to free market, prices change, you pay what you agree to pay for what you agree to get. It's simple, yet it seems to escape so many people. Think stock market and stock prices if that helps you, except all goods in the works work about the same way.

It always amuses me how people feel entitled to any price cuts after their purchase, even sue over it, and yet, this never happens when prices go up - nobody sues to pay the higher price because they bought just before the price went up. So many people are just entitled, selfish, and clueless about how a free market works.

Those are called government AI guardrails - tuned specifically for each administration political narrative. The thing we should be hoping for is that no administration, blue or red, is requiring those same guardrails to be used for all users while they are in power.