Looks like we are doomed then.

There are multiple problems:

1. The censoring goes much further than refuting to participate in a felony.

2. The censoring is done by private companies outside the democratic process.

3. Censoring requires a single source of truth. Somone who has then the power to decide what is true. Also most people will blindlessly beliefe everything an LLM says.

> Does anyone see the path to ROI here?

Replacing all work where someone sits exclusivly behind a screen.

You can make much more money of them since they just uncritically belief whatever the AI tells them.

Noone will sell them tokens, they will be shepherded into buying stuff (like now with ads, just better).

You can get a bunch of small-value contracts requiring a notable amount of work to deal with complaints and outstanding payments.

The alternative are fewer but a lot more high value contracts.

> You can make much more money of them since they just uncritically belief whatever the AI tells them.

Is this true? It's my experience that "normies" take everything that AI says with a huge grain of salt.

What's funny is I was going to say "Midwits can't see the implications of burning the world down", but I decided to refrain.

Ok, so we just need a "national truth agency"?

Who should control that in your opinion, the Democrats or the Republicans?

Or would you prefer sam Altman to decide?

If I as a human make up lies about people, or otherwise commit crimes, for example on a computer, I can be prosecuted.

If a company makes a product, say a chainsaw that cuts off peoples arms randomly, they are liable for it.

But, if you put both of the products together it's a libertarian free for all? That takes some special kind of thinking to reach that conclusion.

Go back to reddot please. You didn't even rely to my argument.

If you can't see how they relate that seems like a you problem, not a me problem.

Do you work in industry or academia?

> But as I said, I don't understand much of the topic

Would it not make more sense to ask questions in this case?

Or I can chat about and say what I think and have people to talk about, correct me and exchange ideas. No one should read a stranger post or comment on the internet and assume it is correct, unbiased or even intelligent. This is merely a conversation

Check out Annas-archive for papers.

> surprise they believe everything it says

It's not just kids in my observation.

Stuff like this was often done to enforce a minimum IQ.

Very reasonable imo as universitys educated people that get positions with responsibilitys.