Absolutely not. From an investment perspective, it's a far riskier bet than I'm comfortable making. From a societal perspective, I am not interested in having any of my money go to Musk or his companies if I can avoid it.

> as long as it's used for the right reasons and that the data is kept secure

Two things that we have yet to be able to even reasonably ensure.

I think it's even worse than that. Our industry has a strong track record of only looking at potential upsides (and pretending they're certain) and not even seeing that there may be serious downsides.

It's a kind of blindness. The kind that is, in my opinion, is one of the major reasons why we ended up building a world that's more than a bit dystopian.

In the case of genAI using a particular expression style, there is less difference between those two meanings than it may seem. If genAI picks up an expression style, it means that style is less suitable for use by humans.

That's a fair point, though I still feel like it's a very roundabout way of saying "Y is going to die because X is going to use it so humans won't want to use it as much".

It's so much easier for me to stay focused working from home as opposed to in the office. An office is filled with nothing but distraction, stress, interruptions, noise, etc.

But I do have habits I've developed over decades of working from home. I have a room dedicated solely to working. If I'm in there, I'm working. If I'm not in there, I'm not working. I get up, get ready for work, and "commute" to my office in the morning just as I do when going into an office. It's part of of the mental shift into work mode.

> I just would like to know your feelings when, at some point through the reading, you realize that what you have in front has not been written by a person.

I feel tricked and angry. I stop reading and won't return to that source in the future.

Only if your definition of "success" consists solely of accumulating wealth. Many people use a different definition.

Being unfamiliar with tools you rely on comes with some downsides, it appears.

Privacy tooling often is devoid of common human nature which is get shit done without making a religion out of it. Good tools are not configurable or dynamic, they just serve a purpose. A hammer or a toaster over...these are good tools. The issue with privacy tools is more about the movement and mission aspect of it.

I underestimated how prolific the idea of tracker - first engineering. Tracking (by the defintion of privacy advocate) is inherent in many if not most system. The privacy preaching that I have been subject to made me believe that privacy is a one button tool.

Whether open source or privacy, I feel like has very little net utility when you offset it by convenience or consequences. You can pay for YouTube premium or you can update the sideloaded app every other week.

Under no circumstances. If it becomes impossible to get medical care without exposing my data to genAI systems, I guess it becomes impossible to get medical care in the US.

> administration figures are working a pathway to regulate independent AI doctors, likening the change to the decades-long process that moved self-driving cars from test tracks to cities across the United States, Gleason said in an interview.

They may want to rethink that. The process of moving self-driving cars to city streets hasn't exactly been great.

> But if a software company were to genuinely own up to their mistakes and say

Even then, it depends. If I've already switched away from said product or service, I'm not coming back regardless of what they say.

Yes. Definitely there's a sweet spot here, in terms of how locked in you are, tied into the ecosystem. A company may have time to course correct, if there is some pain for customers leaving.

At least, more room than if not.

I'm not referring to evil lockin, simply... a very nice degree of customization, and no way to port that to a similar service.