"But they're on OUR side"

Pretty much. Most administrations historically try to use the US spying power, financial power, ect. prudently. Trump has taken every little advantage we have over other countries (especially financial institutions) and put the screws to everyone. A century of trust building pissed away for his personal gain and random grievances. Not saying no one else did this, but several magnitudes less.

The revolution will not be litigated.

Look, a bot might have written that text, but as part of the legal team responsible for the case he must own what he says. As long as he vets and stands behind all the statements he makes, it shouldn't matter whether the text comes from himself, another lawyer, an intern, or a bot.

In fact, in the US at least, only humans can be authors. Bots cannot.

The problem comes when people abdicate their responsibility to the bot. Then they let mistakes through that a human would never had done if they came up with the content themselves. For some content, an "oops" is OK. But in court, a blatant "oops" (like citing cases the AI hallucinated without checking them first) should be a career-ending mistake.

I can't imagine living like this. You see a handful of sentences and because you're too stupid to imagine someone actually writing it without AI, it must have been an LLM.

What if I told you this exact literary structure of "x not y" has been used since the advent of speech? And that pre-LLMs, you would not have batted an eye at this.

i think you meant throes. as US has thier own spying companies, like MS, PALANTIR, anthropoic,,,etc.

oligarch owned

literally false. the guardian is the only independent outlet out there that does not give profit to shareholders. they are known for their bylaws independent finances.

how do you want them to have it “pulled apart”? the #1 rule of writing says that if something is ridiculous, you don’t need to say so, not to mention news writing is not meant to editorialize.

edit: new→news