No, you're not. You're committed to shoving this stuff down our throats as much and as hard as you can get away with. You need people to use this stuff heavily because you're dying for a ROI on money already burned. That's it. Everything else is just sales and PR rhetoric.

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

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.

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

> 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.

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.

It weren't exceedingly unlikely, we'd see some reasonably solid evidence of the possibility that is independent of pareidolia.

> If you disagree with this premise, please provide actual evidence

That's not the way that works. You're the one making the positive claim, it's on you to provide evidence to support your claim.

Which has always been an equally objectionable thing to do as well.

It's OK in the context of doing that to support a larger discussion they're participating in. It's not OK if the quote is the entirety of the response.

> you are more than likely to lose the person entirely from the conversation anyway.

Perhaps, but they weren't really participating in the discussion anyway.

But they aren't willing enough to participate to actually engage in a discussion. They're just making people interact with a bot with a layer of indirection. Apparently, they don't know (or care) that if someone wants the machine's answer rather than the person's, they'd just ask the machine directly.