If you look a little closely you'll see their current project is to establish the "major questions doctrine," which ultimately reduces executive power by stopping Congress from giving it all to the executive. It looks pro-POTUS when it reduces the power of executive agencies, and it looks anti-POTUS when it reduces the power of executive orders. It's really about resetting what powers Congress can delegate.

I'm sure it'll be paraphrased to another company in another 30 years.

I don't think that it's a good policy to forcibly muzzle their drug opinions just because of their good arithmetic skills. Absent professional licensing standards, the burden is on the listener to decide where a resource is strong and where it is weak.

It'd be different if one was signing up to an OpenAI Drug Advice Product, which advertised itself as an authority on drug advice. I think in this case the expectation is set differently up front, with a "ChatGPT can make mistakes" footer on every chat.

I agree that we should be kind to individuals and that understanding an individual's problems can help with that. That said, this paper does not appear to provide convincing evidence that autism is a major contributor to homelessness.

Auto-generating said description tag in the first person is a bit of a weird product decision - probably a bad one that upsets users more than it's useful - but the presentation layer isn't owned by Meta here.

That said - maybe (total hypothetical) the reason one relay becomes really big is because a lot of people think it provides really good service, and maybe it's difficult to convince the majority of the network to route around it. This would create a similar problem to what we see in more well established federated chat networks.

A step in the right direction for sure! But I don't feel like Nostr is the final target that nature is shooting for here.