Article says the erroneous menus weren’t distributed. So, probably not.

Removing the allergen warning is basically some form of attempted manslaughter.

I would generally say they’re great with anything you happy being 100% right 90% of the time.

Maybe more like the new Oak Island Money Pit.

I write these words in steel, for anything not set in metal cannot be trusted.

My wife has a NordicTrack bike, it auto adjusts resistance and incline. Insane people would pay more and not even get that.

There are women who intentionally choose to be a single parent. Like they’re single, they get a sperm donor, have a kid. It’s not some insane thing. Kids should have a supportive and caring environment, whomever raises them. Not every kid with a single caregiver is neglected, nor is every kid with 2 or more caregivers properly cared for.

Gotta crank up that dystopia meter.

This is slowly moving toward having Content On Demand. Imagine being able to prompt your content app for a movie/series you want to watch, and it just makes it and streams it to you.

If by AI, you mean the things people are making today and calling AI, no, they’re all basically powerful regression algorithms. They can be strong tools for people to use to solve complex problems. Anything a program does will be based on what it was programmed to do, at best it will find novel things based on being programmed to look for novel things randomly and people will test and confirm those guesses. They already kind of do this for some medical purposes. Is trying an uncountably large number of randomized guesses and giving a probability for success based on historical data intelligent?

Could a true AI exist like we see in SciFi, maybe?

Other people had the capability to do what Copernicus did, but lacked desire/resources. A LLM will never have the capability for a novel idea.

The point the other person is trying to make is that if a person wants to watch something, but the price is higher than they value or can afford for the experience they will not pay the price, so the company will not profit. If the person then pirates the content to view it, the company has lost nothing additional.

However, one could also make the argument that the viewer having the ability to pirate lowers what they are willing to pay, thus the company does lose some amount of profit in aggregate over time. This though is not necessarily true for those who lack the means to pay, rather than just the willingness.

Ultimately for people who do have the means, piracy is a symptom more of a service issue rather than a price issue. People generally will follow the path of least resistance to acquire what they desire. For most people a small payment and easy access will lead them not to pirate, but as prices rise, content fractures and UIs enshitify, the aggregate effort crosses the line and they start to withdraw and turn to other methods.

Everyone has their own willingness to pay for things on the demand curve, if companies pick an optimal price, they maximize profits, and aren’t harmed by people who cannot or will not pay that price utilizing a non-consumable resource without payment.