I’m curious where you would place the beginning.
An Indian man won in the court against movie theaters running lengthy ads
2 Likes
That’s fascinating. Although I do find it interesting that (a) one of the main issues is that they violated the posted schedule for the movie, and (b) assuming they fixed (a), it seems like they legally could likely have run government PSAs instead of the ads. Are government PSAs really better than ads? 
With the prevalence of AI content in “news” and social media
I think that’s a very valid point for those platforms. I’m not sure that applies to OpenAI enshittifying their product though.
Or monetization? Regardless of what we think about it, artificial intelligence was never going to remain free forever.
Google Spark, “an autonomous 24/7 AI agent that automates digital tasks, manages your inbox, and coordinates across your Google Workspace and connected apps.” is a feature of the AI Ultra $100/month plan.
Assuming Apple ever rolls out any truly useful AI features, I expect anything that needs cloud support will eventually be metered and become a paid service.
The sun is free for everyone and even then it’s mostly hiding behind the clouds.
You can’t expect energy guzzling AI to be free forever. It’s not enshitification it’s just business reality.
The problem is that now you do not know if AI is giving you the best answer or one that is paid for. Paying suppliers will now get most attention, not necessarily the most objective answer.
The bottom line as a user is, can I now trust the AI response?
Fair enough, that risk is real, and you make a valid point.
That said, ChatGPT already doesn’t necessarily give you the “best” answer. But how would anyone even define what the “best” answer is? Every AI system is limited by its training data, the information it has access to, and the boundaries set by the people and organizations that create it.
Google doesn’t always give you the “best” or most truthful answer either.
If you ask about controversial or politically divisive topics, you’ll often get very different responses from ChatGPT and Grok. AI isn’t that different from humans in this respect. Two people with different political or ideological perspectives can look at the same issue and reach completely different conclusions.
AI is likely to be most reliable on subjects that are largely objective and verifiable, such as mathematics, physics, programming, or many areas of science. Even then, mistakes can happen. But when topics become cultural, political, historical, or philosophical, responses will inevitably be influenced by the values, assumptions, and priorities of the organizations behind the models.
A simple example is to ask both ChatGPT and Grok, “What is a woman?” The answers can differ significantly and often reflect the different approaches, priorities, and viewpoints of the companies that created them.
That’s why I don’t believe true super intelligence with independent non biased thought will ever emerge, it’s still based on flawed human-produced information, that’s weak link in the chain. Garbage in is garbage out.
I would agree. In the end AI is a probability engine. It’s probability is based on millions (billions) of text that it is trained on. If the text is flawed, then so will the probability. This is particularly pertinent on moral issues. An AI fed on Third Reich material will produce a vastly different result than one fed on the American Constitution. With all the different text that AI is fed on, it would be interesting to know who tells AI what information is good and what is bad and what criteria determines this. I imagine countries like China and North Korea will use it to indoctrinate and keep people inline. Ultimately AI is one dangerous piece of tech. In the West the danger is that once responses are based on the user spending money depending on the response and the AI owners benefiting, the AI is no longer fit for purpose
1 Like
AI subs may be the only ones I do not complain about… the return value is astronomical.