While that’s true, it was mostly just because Mondale was from Minnesota, and even then he only won by 0.18%.

This is the biggest thing. If he were to actually tell the full truth here, he’d be less successful in getting his message across to the people who listen to him. Full truth is the ultimate goal, but we’re so far from it that for half the country it’s an impossibly huge leap to go from where they are now to the truth in one bound.

Because the media is owned and operated by rich men who benefit from putting the blame on others and calling it “news.”

I sure hope so, but I don’t see much changing. I guess we’ll see by looking at where Reddit is at business-wise by next year. People were saying it was doomed last summer after the 3rd party app fiasco, and their daily traffic has only gone up since then. I’ve long since lost all faith in the masses making the best choices for themselves.

They’re better than the OLD alternative, which was total boycotting at best, and torches and pitchforks at worst. The NEW alternative is complaining about it for a week or two, then continuing on without making any changes at all. They don’t mind the new alternative.

Ah, I see.

I do too - it’s a gender-neutral name. He just pictured a girl, and didn’t even think that he might be wrong.

I guarantee you he asked someone who he was supposed to be introducing right before he went on stage, heard the name Nicky, pictured a woman, and introduced accordingly.

Eh, it’s just removing unnecessary words as most headlines do. “Cheney says Republicans (that are) against Trump but (are) not backing Harris (are) ‘not (doing) enough’”

I mean, most of them probably became judges specifically to gain the power to choose who needs to follow what laws - as well as the profitable position that puts them in for rich criminals who don’t want to go to jail.

My sister used to be the head of the environmental department of one of the suburbs of Minneapolis. She’s met Tim Walz a few times, and has had nothing but good things to say about both his personality and his attitude toward the environment. The US has pretty slim pickings for good politicians these days, but I really feel that Tim is on that list. I’m feeling hopeful about American politics for the first time since I learned about how American politics works!

Can’t have a blue wave without a blue vote.

Oh, I’m sure they’ll patch anything that gets exposed, absolutely. But that’s just it - there are already several examples of people using AI to do non-brand-friendly stuff, but all the developers have to do is go “whoops, patched” and everyone’s fine. They have no need to go out of their way to pay people to catch these issues early; they can just wait until a PR issue happens, patch whatever caused it, and move on.

Ah, I see. It’s true that these issues cast a negative light on AI, but I doubt most people will even hear about most of them, or even really understand them if they do. Even when talking about brand security, there’s little incentive for these companies to actually address the issues - the AI train is already full-steam ahead.

I work with construction plans in my job, and just a few weeks ago I had to talk the CEO of the company I work for out of spending thousands on a program that “adds AI to blueprints.” It literally just added a chatgpt interface to a pdf viewer. The chat wasn’t even able to actually interact with the PDF in any way. He was enthralled by the “demo” that a rep had shown him at an expo, that I’m sure was set up to make it look way more useful than it really was. After that whole fiasco, I lost faith that the people in charge of whether or not AI programs are adopted will actually do their due diligence to ensure they’re actually helpful.

Having a good brand image only matters if people are willing to look.

I highly doubt that OpenAI or any other AI developer would see any real repercussions, even if they had a security hole that someone managed to exploit to cause harm. Companies exist to make money, and OpenAI is no exception; if it’s more profitable to release a dangerous product than a safe one, and they won’t get in trouble for it, they’ll likely have no issues with releasing their product with security holes.

Unfortunately, the question can’t be “should we be charging them for this?” Nobody is going to force them to pay, and they have no reason to do it on their own. Barring an entire cultural revolution, the question instead must be “should we do it anyway to prevent this from being used in harmful ways?” And the answer is yes. Our society is designed to maximize profits, usually for people who already have money, so if you’re working within the confines of that society, you need to factor that into your reasoning.

Companies have long since decided that ethics is nothing more than a burden getting in the way of their profits, and you’ll have a hard time going against the will of the companies in a capitalist country.