What if the price is a hallucination by the CEO?

What if it's purely about creating scarcity for more subscription profit, and in reality demand is not prohibitive because, as you continually remind us, AI is no good and how can so many be enthralled with such a dumb fake?

Claude, can you write a load balancer for yourself so you don't have to impose user limits?

Why did that recent slashdot post say that Norway had become too rich and unproductive when innovators like this Norwegian company are improving sales per employee hours worked by bricking old functionality and forcing a switch to a subscription model?

So do I still have the freedom to be suspicious of medicine and avoid doctors as much as possible because I don't trust them, and how much freedom of speech do I have to try to make you wary too? If I remain unconvinced by your defense of scientifc medicine because it all just seems like fad, when doctors tell us coffee is bad, then good, and prostate cancer iis an epidemic, then just natural (my Dad underwent prostate surgery then died of cancer just a few years later before any prostate problems would have surfaced so how necessary was the surgery?), how free will you allow me to be in presenting the case against medicine and trying to spread my observations?

And as for violence, what if that is just a fad too, and you are wildly exaggerating its necessity because laws and enforcement can create a violent reaction where there wild have been no violence otherwise? Why do I turn off violent shows? Why have video games involving violence never appealed to me? What if I'm a good example you should be emulating instead of making excuses to yourself about why you have to like violence?

If they used AI would you be blaming the AI even though it happened anyway?

Here's ChatGPT's suggested response:

Here's your comment rewritten in **plain vanilla ASCII** to avoid rendering issues on Slashdot:

---

**Re: Before you rail on this...**
rsm 1 minute ago

Sure. But the fact that AI *could* tell you 2+2=7 is not the real issue â" what matters is that you *believed it* when it did. Or worse, that someone in power did. We live in a time where plausibility often outranks accuracy.

Calling out AI's unreliability is fair, but what is more interesting is *why it is trusted anyway* â" despite the errors. That speaks more to institutional incentives and human psychology than to the technology itself.

Metaphor or not, the calculator comparison misses the real difference: a calculator's job is to be boring and precise. LLMs are built to *sound* right â" sometimes more than *be* right.

The question then becomes: what kind of human culture builds tools to persuade instead of verify â" and what does that imply about how we define "intelligence"?

---

Let me know if you'd like an even shorter version or one that plays more to Slashdot's usual skepticism.

---

Hey how come I have no preview button to check if the AI actually got the formatting right for slashdot?

How come Jains have existed since before recorded history, practicing nonviolence?

Are scientific treatments really more reliable as you claim? Why didn't chemotherapy do anything to stop my Dad's cancer, and why did the depression drugs my brother was prescribed fail to prevent his suicide?

How come when I cut and paste from random web pages slashdot mangles the apistrophes and dashes and whatnot?

"I'm already fast and good at what I do." Coding captchas?

What if they come up with the idea that the Tiananmen square incident actually happened?

Yeah, the worse your mind is doing, the easier it is to be satisfied with life.

So instead of age-binary are you age-hexadecimal?

What happens when AI teaches Chinese students that democracy is better than the CCP?

Is the only real problem with crack its prohibition?