I would go so far as to say that it should be illegal for AI to lull humans into anthropomorphizing them. It would be hard to write an effective law on this, but I think it is doable.

Great article but disappointed that the monkey with the camera did not make an appearance.

A small step. Some of us have seen it weaponized in my lifetime, some think it's ridiculous until it's not.

No, "physical harm".

This comes from the dated perspective that free trade is universally good. Nations create their own trade rules and they ought to be able to enforce them. I consider that far preferable than attempts to exert extraterritorial control over services from other countries.

If, say, Uruguay doesn't like content on Facebook, they are free to block it. In their opinion, they are protecting their citizens and that's ok. It should not produce legal action that could result in least common denominator style global content censorship.

In an ideal world, there would be no country level blocking but invariably laws will differ.

> This comes from the dated perspective that free trade is universally good.

lol, ok, I'll bite. Other than one side might try to change the rules; why should I believe is free trade is no longer universally good? What is the specific argument?

Because if the argument is that one side might impose taxes, duh? But that's no longer free trade is it?

If both sides were willing to play fair, why wouldn't that be better? And why shouldn't we all be trying to "encourage" everyone to play fair?

There are many arguments but the most straightforward one is that a country may decide that preserving particular industries is in their security interest. That can be extended to culture as well.

Japan closed itself off from the world for centuries during the Edo period. One could say that they suffered economically due to that, but on the other hand, they ended up creating one of the more unique cultures in the world, developing in ways very different from others. It's an interesting kind of diversity.

Food production is a huge one. We don't want highly optimized farming where only the most efficient growers feed everyone else because that has the risk of global famine if something fails there. The more a system is optimized, the closer to failure it is. Same goes for all other kinds of production but food is really important compared to, say, CPUs or cars.

Fine .. say your country has a several years of drought and bad harvest. What happens then ? Do you trade then ?

Or .. lets say due to weather, your farmers can not grow enough oranges or some fruit which drives up local prices. Should only the richest people in your country get to eat fruits ?

Or you discover lithium deposits that your national industry can not use . Should you let that just sit there knowing it could make your province prosperous if traded.

You took a far too extreme interpretation that ended up backwards. What normal countries do is trade anyway but with tariffs and subsidies so that in normal circumstances, local food is competitive to keep farmers operating but if there's a local production problem, imported goods become more competitive. That buffers the population from extremes of price/availability.

Sure, you can trade but it is a choice. Claiming that free trade is universally good is saying that there is only one right choice - no barriers.

The juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Why do people want to signal their low status?

That’s a good point, an AI email/Slack/summary postions you as at bootlicker at best, writing summaries to look good, and a failed secretary at most, but in any case of low value on the real-work scale.

I’m just afraid this kind of types are the future people who get promoted.

In their minds it is a signal of high status.

It’s an attempt to be “cutting edge”

Isn't every advanced technology is seniority-biased?

..and regulation. The same with supersonic.

More businesses than the authors can imagine work this way. They really ought to sit down and have a coffee with some salespeople.

It's fancy modern haggling... Where one party has almost infinitely more knowledge than the other, both about you and about every other person that might buy the good/service.

That imbalance is what people hate. It's part of why people hate car salesmen. And a large part of why people hate most salesmen.