marcusb

*outlaw AI-generated legal documents by non-lawyers.

It is in the Memphis area - not Nashville - but yes, they use gas turbine generators.

Or tried that vocabulary estimator that is currently on the front page (it gave me zenzizenizenic in the last section.)

It is used as a shielding gas in some welding processes (notably, MIG welding.)

False equivalence. In your straw man, the elephant isn't misled into believing that by posing for a photo it could be "helped," nor is it possible to communicate such an idea to an elephant. In the story, money was raised for the boy's cancer treatment, and that money was improperly withheld, denying him the treatment those funds could have provided. He was harmed by that, and by being misled into thinking he could get treatment by appearing in the video, he was scammed. Lying to the family and stating the funds weren't raised is also scamming them.

But, of course, you know that, but you would rather dig and (try to) play semantic games than admit you are wrong. Do better.

Yeah. “We’re not incentivized to push one model or the other,” may be a statement of current fact, not of values.

I think the kid in the article who got $27k raised in his name for cancer treatment, received $0 in cancer treatment from those funds, and subsequently died of cancer definitely got scammed.

A lot? Also irrelevant. All it takes is one for the statement "nobody can see the bubble" to be false. Take the housing bubble for instance. Do you think the people who called that one were successful purely by chance, or does the fact that a few investors observed that mortgage lenders were underwriting loans to people with extremely poor credit and approving loan applications the lenders knew to be materially fraudulent at a massive scale indicate that the call was more of an educated wager? Did they know to a certainty it was a bubble? No, of course not. Was it a very reasonable guess? Absolutely.

That's the conventional wisdom, undercut by the fact that people have guessed (and bet their fortunes) that previous bubbles were bubbles well before they popped.

Its more accurate to say that bubbles rely on most people being blind to the bubble's nature.

> The GenAI bubble is going to pop. Everyone knows that.

I think the first part of this is probably true, but I don’t think everyone knows it. A lot of people are acting like they don’t know it.

It feels like a bubble to me, but I don’t think anyone can say to a certainty that it is, or that it will pop.

More choice as in “more revenue streams from which to create shareholder value.”