This seems like a novelty that people would watch one time and then promptly forget about. Where’s the appeal in this at all? Not even from an “AI BAD” standpoint, but just, like… why?

Really, the whole basis for the anti-AI arguments seem to boil down to “It feels wrong that a billionaire’s corporation should be able to take the work of artists and writers and, without paying them for it, use it to create a tool that is then used to put them out of work.” And that’s absolutely 100% true, but it unfortunately doesn’t hold any legal weight, and the terms we currently have to describe intellectual property theft simply aren’t sufficient to describe what’s going on here. Until new laws are passed, I don’t see any of these attempts to stop AI going anywhere, but I’d love to be proven incorrect.

Since several journalists wrote about this issue, Meta has made it clearer to users when interactions with its bot will be shared to the Discover tab.

So it wasn’t even an error that they were being made public? Holy shit. I figured the response would be ‘Oops, sorry, that never should have been made available publically’, but it seems the only error was that it wasn’t made clear to users that it would be.

Yeah, I’ve been a T-Mobile customer for almost 20 years, never had much of a complaint, but this has me seriously looking at alternatives.

T-Mobile was one of the 20 or so companies that sponsored his birthday parade. I suspect they’d just bend over and take it.

Twenty two corporations and foundations are sponsoring the 250th Army Birthday Parade and Festival on the National Mall, according to the Army. General Dynamics and USAA are the presenting sponsors for the festival, which is also benefiting from a long list of companies and nonprofits including: the Gary Sinise Foundation, Bell Textron, Wounded Warrior Project Wal-Mart, GOVX, Leonardo DRS, RTX Corporation, Lockheed Martin, Leidos, Armed Forces Mutual, Boeing, First Command, General Electric Aerospace, T-Mobile, King George, InterContinental Hotels Group and the NFL.

Trump has a proven track record for releasing quality products that are exactly as advertised and always end up being wildly successful and definitely not scams or grifts. His brand is synonymous with quality and integrity. I don’t know why you’d even question this.

The problem with that is that that sort of policy makes the internet just cease to function. User-generated content makes up a massive portion of what’s on the internet, and it can’t possibly all be policed before being posted, unless you want to make a post on Bluesky or whatever and have to wait weeks for it to be approved after manual review. The law requires companies to promptly respond to takedown requests but as long as they do, they aren’t responsible for the content posted by their users.

Yeah, the part about most having 16+ flags isn’t really surprising (or in my opinion concerning). The rest of it, though, is pretty damning, especially the executive response to it all. While I agree with the laws (in my country, at least) that online platforms generally can’t be held responsible for what their users post, those executives should absolutely be held accountable for choosing money.

I know ‘AI bad’ and all that, but this is actually a great use of it, in my opinion. It sounds like it was a positive experience for everyone involved, and it sounds like being able to separate herself from this victim statement helped her write it to be more genuinely in the spirit of what the deceased man would have said than she otherwise would have been able to, while also more cleanly separating her own, very opposite, feelings from it.