It's a deflection campaign - focusing consumer attention on a thing that is true (that won't cost them money) to divert attention from another thing that is true (that will cost them money and is their fault).

Both are true - and if they want to exploit a commons (the environment, the electrical grid), then they should pay for that exploit.

I have no love for Zuckerberg or Lucky or Musk or any of those gadooshbags, but I don't hate generative AI. It's a useful tool and I've been using it consistently every day for well over a year. I'm part of "everybody", so that's at least one counterexample.

You would think even the lowest paid employees performing routine labor at the company would be pulling in multiple 6-figure salaries. I wonder if that's the case?

"I" was perfectly fine before I was born, and therefore I'm very certain "I" will be perfectly fine after I die. That's comforting to me when I periodically have an existential crisis.

I actually see the value in your idea, but it looks like it still needs work to be trustworthy.

Personally, I would only trust it after seeing several 'ground truth comparisons of predicted results compared to the actual photos of people who had the procedure done.

"You left out the "trustable" adjective, and that's the killer."

Agreed. If there were a simple 3rd party vetting service that currenlty trusted purveyor's of news used religiously, that in and of itself would allow me to trust said third party validator for other, perhaps non-mainstrem channels, and not trust thos who didn't use the 3rd party validator.

I'm just saying - there's a high demand for trust. One could argue that the currency of the forseable future is indeed "trust".

Why can't we just have a third party vetting service for true content, where the content is labeled with a serial number and URL, and I can just look it up on the third party service's site to confirm it's validity (and if the content has no serial number watermarked on it, then I just ignore it as false)???

Humans are the worst.