It is good enough. I wouldn’t have cared if they did make paid users opt out. I think it’s a courtesy to their paid users, not an attack on their free users, that they allow paid users to opt in instead of opting out.

Also, there’s no way they developed a whole separate system for this. It’s likely a single line boolean check.

That’s fair, but that’s just a service quality complaint. It doesn’t sound to me like you are claiming they are doing “a bad thing”, as a moral value judgement.

I disagree about what the bare minimum is. It’s not uninformed. They tell you about it, and tell you you can opt out. I don’t really see how that would be them doing it without permission.

The right thing is to make it opt-in for everyone

How is that the right thing? I’m directly challenging this claim.

All I said was that free users cost them money, so it’s reasonable for them to try to recover those costs. I never claimed that free users are a drain on them, so I won’t even respond to the rest of your comment.

This may be controversial, but trying to collect the data of your free users to offset the costs of the infrastructure/resources needed to support the free users is not a bad thing - especially when you give those users an option to opt-out.

You make it sound like their goal is to do bad things. That’s not true. Corporations are not good or evil, they are amoral. They don’t care if what they are doing is good or bad - it just matters if they make money.

they’re free to just do the right thing completely

What exactly would that entail?

It’s not stupid. Most cars will signal whether or not they are locked properly on the second press.

Just say you recently came into some inheritance and that you are looking into investment opportunities. Then they will expect you to be out of your element, so you won’t need to try to pretend you’re someone you’re not. If they ask about the inheritance, say your grandfather made a fortune selling lumber or something boring like that.

Language parsing is a routine process that doesn’t require AI and it’s something we have been doing for decades. That phrase in no way plays into the hype of AI. Also, the weights may be random initially (though not uniformly random), but the way they are connected and relate to each other is not random. And after training, the weights are no longer random at all, so I don’t see the point in bringing that up. Finally, machine learning models are not brute-force calculators. If they were, they would take billions of years to respond to even the simplest prompt because they would have to evaluate every possible response (even the nonsensical ones) before returning the best answer. They’re better described as a greedy algorithm than a brute force algorithm.

I’m not going to get into an argument about whether these AIs understand anything, largely because I don’t have a strong opinion on the matter, but also because that would require a definition of understanding which is an unsolved problem in philosophy. You can wax poetic about how humans are the only ones with true understanding and that LLMs are encoded in binary (which is somehow related to the point you’re making in some unspecified way); however, your comment reveals how little you know about LLMs, machine learning, computer science, and the relevant philosophy in general. Your understanding of these AIs is just as shallow as those who claim that LLMs are intelligent agents of free will complete with conscious experience - you just happen to land closer to the mark.

I don’t recall any socialized courier or food delivery services.

2 may be the only even prime - that is it’s the only prime divisible by 2 - but 3 is the only prime divisible by 3 and 5 is the only prime divisible by 5, so I fail to see how this is unique.