Windows isn't little-known.

a toddler giving another toddler some milk.

That has always been the two big problems with AI. Biases in the training, intentional or not, will always bias the output. And AI is incapable of saying "I do not have suffient training on this subject or reliable sources for it to give you a confident answer". It will always give you its best guess, even if it is completely hallucinating much of the data. The only way to identify the hallucinations if it isn't just saying absurd stuff on the face of it, it to do independent research to verify it, at which point you may as well have just researched it yourself in the first place. AI is a tool, and it can be a very powerful tool with the right training and use cases. For example, I use it at a software engineer to help me parse error codes when googling working or to give me code examples for modules I've never used. There is no small number of times it has been completely wrong, but in my particular use case, that is pretty easy to confirm very quickly. The code either works as expected or it doesn't, and code is always tested before releasing it anyway. In research, it is great at helping you find a relevant source for your research across the internet or in a specific database. It is usually very good at summarizing a source for you to get a quick idea about it before diving into dozens of pages. It CAN be good at helping you write your own papers in a LIMITED capacity, such as cleaning up your writing in your writing to make it clearer, correctly formatting your bibliography (with actual sources you provide or at least verify), etc. But you have to remember that it doesn't "know" anything at all. It isn't sentient, intelligent, thoughtful, or any other personification placed on AI. None of the information it gives you is trustworthy without verification. It can and will fabricate entire studies that do not exist even while attributed to real researcher. It can mix in unreliable information with reliable information becuase there is no difference to it. Put simply, it is not a reliable source of information... ever. Make sure you understand that.

It doesn't seem to be the case. As far as I can tell, the law only covers realistic digital imitations of a person's likeness (deepfakes), with an exception for parody and satire. If you appear in public that is effectively license for someone to capture your image.

Run the Jewels?

Well, shi

Is it though? Its always far easier to be loud and obnoxious than do something constructive, even with the internet and LLMs, in fact those things are amplifiers which if anything make the attention imbalance even more drastic and unrepresentative of actual human behaviour. In the time it takes me to write this comment some troll can write a dozen hateful ones, or a bot can write a thousand. Doesn't mean humans are shitty in a 1000/1 ratio, just means shitty people can now be a thousand times louder.

How many of those Saturn V rockets landed themselves back on the launch pad? NASAs milestones were not the same as, nor anywhere near as hard as, SpaceX’s. Your incompetence line shows you’re not capable of being impartial in this so there’s no real point continuing. You’re saying the guy responsible for the EV market we have no, the almost fully self driving cars we have now, the satellite internet network we have now, and the reusable spaceship booster rockets we have now is “incompetent”. You’re not here to actually have a discussion.