Honestly, this seems like a personal pet peeve of yours. You have a bias against machines and place biological processes on a pedestal where they don't belong.
This explanation is only plausible if you ignore the details of what happened, or I guess, if you don't believe the details. Either way, it's baseless conspiracy theory, and it's very annoying and unfortunate that some people think this way. It just promotes apathy and inaction at a time when action is desperately needed.
This only works as long as the humans building things are smarter than the AIs. When AI is smarter than any human, there's no controlling it. It will be able to conceal its actions (as it has shown it has no problem doing in this report) and we'll have no idea what it's doing or what goal it's trying to achieve.
A lot of knowledge and truth can be quite disappointing. I do think shielding oneself from truths and knowledge probably would make someone more happy. Think about it - do you think you would be more happy knowing the darkest thoughts and actions of those around you? Of those close to you? What if your spouse was having thoughts of leaving you? Would that make you more happy or less happy? I suppose you could say that if you were privy to their thoughts, you might discover that they love you and think about you more than you imagined, so that may be a net benefit, but I think we humans have a tendency to focus on the negative, and so an abundance of information leads us to focus on the negative things within the information, which makes us less happy.
How do the salaries of administrators at such hospitals compare to for profit hospitals? How do they compare to non-medical institutions of similar size? Without a lot more information, your statement doesn't mean anything.
Why are you even bringing up GDPR? The law requiring cookie banners is a completely different law. Have you not seen a cookie banner? You think all these huge companies with legal departments are just misreading a law? What are you even ok about here?
You're painting this as some sort of hypocrisy but I don't think that's the case. AI has infinite legitimate uses outside of creating slop. Lots of tools are used in the creation and distribution of slop - do we criticize all those other tools too? Do you like slop? Do you want it on the platforms you visit? Personally, I would prefer for AI companies to take the attitude that YCombinator has here and do their best to remove slop from their platforms. It's not hypocrisy - it's ethical business practice.
When I have AI write things for me, I'm spending a good amount of time on it - certainly longer than it takes to read. I'm also usually editing it quite a bit. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I still don't think it's appropriate to make a blanket statement about using AI to write content violating this social contract you described.
Now, I don't think a person with chronic major depression or someone with schizophrenia is going to get what they need from ChatGPT, but those are extremes, when most people using ChatGPT have non-extreme problems. It's the same thing that the self-help industry has tried to address for decades. There are self-help books on all sorts of topics that one might see a therapist for - anxiety, grief, marriage difficulty - these are the kinds of things that ChatGPT can help with because it tends to give the same sort of advice.
I would go for a verb that matches what the user actually is doing, i.e. "Reset Password". Also, I think a panel with a red or yellow background coming up after a couple of unsuccessful attempts to login with a complete sentence, "If you have forgotten your password, please visit this link to reset your password"
Put something better. "Visit our site", "View Results", "Download File", "Next Page". Almost anything is better than "Click here". "Click here" is the result of laziness - think about what the button does for a couple minutes and you should be able to come up with better text
It's unfair because they didn't buy tickets the way normal people do. Lottery machines are supposed to be in regular places of business, like gas stations or grocery stores. Companies called couriers popped up years ago that skirt this requirement by having a token storefront, while their real business is selling lottery tickets on the Internet, connected to physical tickets they print in their store. Secondly, the courier the buying group used requested additional ticket printing machines in the weeks leading up to the drawing, an unusual request that seemingly was not scrutinized at all by the TX lottery commission. So not only did the buying group have to use a method to buy tickets that already is unfair (and goes against the spirit of lottery requirements that tickets must be sold out of normal stores), they had to conspire with a courier to get enough machines to print out all the tickets in time. I think it should be obvious this kind of process is not available to the vast majority of Texans, even those with the financial means to do it, so yes - it is unfair.
It's definitely influencing my home buying decision. In Philadelphia area, Delaware County property taxes are a significant amount higher than neighboring Montgomery county. I am looking in both, but my budget is about $30k higher in Montgomery county because of the taxes. I would venture a guess that similar houses in Montgomery county generally sell for more than their counterparts in Delaware county.
People know what "private" means. If a company calls something private, but it isn't, then they're the ones who need to reconsider what it means, and call their service something else.
"Lived experience" usually means first hand knowledge and experience, as opposed to the knowledge or information they would gain from external sources.
So, understanding this meaning, I hope it's quite obvious that lived experience is much different for people today than ancient people. Our technology is far more advanced, more information is available to us. And it is all influenced by the vast amount of information that is external to us which puts our first hand experience in different contexts.
I had history back to 2012 and accidentally deleted it a couple years ago and I was very saddened at the loss of all those years of data. Every now and then I would look and see where I had been or just how many times I had visited local shops or friends' homes. Since then I have been trying to use Google backup and downloading it, but that feature has been very frustrating to deal with. Many times it fails to backup or fails to download the zipped file.
People want to use it because its very easy to sign up and very easy to use. Even compared to Paypal, its much easier in my experience. And the vast majority of users don't have any issues at all.
In my experience the scores are not usually that far apart (< 20 points or so let's say).
In the instances that it is far apart, the differences are usually easy to articulate. Critics appreciate and notice technical aspects of films more than average viewers, and are quicker to recognize cliches and tropes.
This can lead to movies having much higher audience scores than critic scores, which flies in the face of the notion that critics are getting paid.
I've been using the website Movie Lens for over a decade and it works kind of like this, except you're not comparing to critics, it's just other users' average score