If the private subsidiary was doing semi-unrelated stuff to the goals of the non-profit, and using it to fund the non-profit, then your logic could make sense - for example if a cancer research charity owned a profitable business and funnelled the profits up to spend on research, great.
But in OpenAI's case, the claimed goals of the non-profit were essentially "do AI in a way that puts safety above profits". And whether or not one agrees with their previous approach to safety, or even whether safety needs to be cared about, it's undeniable that the for-profit business isn't acting as useful fundraising for the non-profit's goals, it's literally acting in the opposite direction.
Well, you don't know if they do, or if they were just capitalising the start of their sentence while not feeing that the word needs a capital letter in and of itself.
(But yeah, personally I would capitalised both counties regardless of spelling/which name used.)
I agree that the TV part isn't particularly great itself, but over the years I've had plenty of late nights with TV on ( not as many as with music, which would be my choice if at home) where I can remember conversations had but no memory of what was on the TV
It partly depends on whether "time spent on screens" is counting time where a person's attention is primarily on the screen, or time when a screen is actively directed at a person.
As a few examples from my life (I'm sure there are plenty of other such scenarios too):
- There are quite a few hours in a typical week where my phone screen is showing a video, but just because I can't have it playing in the background (eg YouTube without premium, although actually I've just installed a third party app to get around that for YT). I'm actually just listening with a wireless earpiece or two while doing something else.
- Time spent with a friend where we're sort of watching TV, but more than half the time our attention is on our conversation not on the screen.
- Time spent multitasking, whether that's doing a hobby while also watching TV, or texting people while also eating, or whatever.
Those types of things can make the difference between a certain amount of screen time being a much smaller or much bigger part of a person's day.
> "more than 6 in 10 people declare they already use AI for mental health questions. 42% of them almost always follow the advice it gives them."
If these numbers were "of people who regularly use GenAI chat tools" then I'd be surprised it was quite so high already, but not shocked and would find it completely believable.
But this seems to be "of all people surveyed", which I'm rather skeptical of - unless their sample was very biased (as an extreme example, if they recruited people to the survey only by linking to it in ChatGPT ads, but there are plenty of less extreme ways to get a sample group that's way more likely to use AI than a genuinely random sample of the whole population).
It's also worth noting (and perhaps somewhat explains numbers seeming so unrealistically high to me) that, unless I've misunderstood, "turn to AI for psychological support" isn't necessarily "using AI as a therapist", it could be uses as minor as asking "Can exercise help with my depression?" or "If I think I am having a nervous breakdown, should I talk to a doctor?"
Sorry, what do you mean by "To not own the model is not viable in 2026."
I assume I'm misunderstanding you (likely my fault), because the way I read that is that you're saying nobody should currently be using models owned & hosted by companies like OpenAI and Antheopic, while clearly a huge number of people are using those in 2026 despite not owning them.
But I believe since then Anthropic have raised more money, almost certainly diluting Google's stake (I could be wrong and misremembering that Google didn't partake in the additional fundraising). I have in the back of my head that Google is down to something like 10% now, but don't have time to go and find details to fact check that, sorry!
Of course that's not to say that the advertising situation will be identical to that of pre-LLM search engines, and the differences may lead to radically different economic models and user experiences. But I was just correcting your statement.
This may vary by country, it isn't a subject I'm particularly familiar with, but at least in the UK that isn't true - many, I think most, life insurance policies here do pay out for suicide. There's just a period of years between the start of the policy and when suicide starts to be covered, to prevent people who are planning on killing themselves from being able to take out insurance just before doing so.
There definitely are ways that publishers could have avoided falling foul of anti-Cartel legislation (my question was about where the line is, ie if they did it legally would it actually benefit them), but...
Spotify and Netflix aren't owned or created by a syndicate of all the major publishers, so that's not actually a counter point. There's a huge difference legally speaking between a company negotiating with lots of rights holders to offer customers all of their content in one place, vs. those rights holders co-creating that platform and running it themselves.
(Not that the distributor has to be owned by a cartel of the rights holders to still abuse their position illegally, eg https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/e-book-retailers-d... - it's just that the cartel aspect is the bit I had been talking about.)
I'm not very familiar with anti-cartel laws (in any country), but I wonder if there would be legal issues preventing publishing companies from working together in such a way even if they otherwise had wanted to?
(Though even if that is the case, I'd still think they could have at least agreed on open standards to use, to prevent anyone like Amazon from creating vendor lock-in.)
But Amazon had advantages from its size. In terms of economies of scale for device manufacturing, publishers could have somewhat caught up if they pooled money to invest in a co-owned company that made devices (though still wouldn't have had such an advantage as Amazon, who could share R&D and production costs with any overlaps to other devices such as smart home speakers, Android tablets, etc.) But Amazon was also able to take a bigger picture approach, using cheap Kindles/ebooks to attract people into their ecosystem and then converting a not-insignificant amount of them to buying other stuff on Amazon.
There have been quite a few punctuations proposed for indicating sarcasm, but interrobang not one of them - that (‽) is literally a combined ? and !, and is (per wikipedia) for "a question in an excited manner, expresses excitement, disbelief, or confusion in the form of a question, or asks a rhetorical question".
This page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_punctuation - has sarcasm ones (but I don't think any are as well known as the interrobang, which itself isn't exactly universally used... though personally I'm weird enough to have a keyboard shortcut to type it on my phone)
In a similar vein to cobbzilla, I have a couple of family members (and to a lesser extent myself too) who would be keen on such an app for their iOS devices if you ever need some testers for that :)
(iPhones 15 Pro, 11 Pro, SE-2nd; and an iPad of some kind)
Personally I find the formatting used by the Gutenberg one to be a lot nicer/easier to read, despite (or perhaps because of) being simpler, more plain.
At least for the first few pages of content that I looked at on both versions.
If the private subsidiary was doing semi-unrelated stuff to the goals of the non-profit, and using it to fund the non-profit, then your logic could make sense - for example if a cancer research charity owned a profitable business and funnelled the profits up to spend on research, great.
But in OpenAI's case, the claimed goals of the non-profit were essentially "do AI in a way that puts safety above profits". And whether or not one agrees with their previous approach to safety, or even whether safety needs to be cared about, it's undeniable that the for-profit business isn't acting as useful fundraising for the non-profit's goals, it's literally acting in the opposite direction.