What evidence are you expecting exactly? It's vacuous AI slop that spends 1000 words just making vague assertions about how incredible OpenClaw is without a single actual example. There's nothing here, it's not real. You are going to struggle going forward if you can't detect AI slop this obvious.
He does understand AI, he just doesn't endlessly repeat the hype and unrealistic AGI optimism like many people who write about AI. He thinks and speaks for himself even when he knows it will be unpopular. That's rare and what makes him worth following and considering even if you don't agree with everything he says.
> Sam Altman’s job isn’t to give calculated statements about AI. He is a hype man. His job is to make rich people and companies want to give him more money.
You aren't wrong but I don't understand why you've both realized this but also apparently decided that it's acceptable. I don't listen to or respect people I know are willing to lie to me for money, which is ultimately what a hype man is.
"At least for the more tech inclined" instantly eliminates 99% of users, probably even of Firefox for what you're talking about. I mean I'm tech inclined and I have no idea how you propose to firewall an internet browser from calling home. Maybe it's possible, I've never tried so I legitimately don't know. But if it is, it's an absolutely meaningless portion of users who'd even be able to do so much less go through the effort of actually doing it.
You're not a conspiracy theorist, you're just recognizing that the reality doesn't match the hype. It's boring and not fun but in this situation the answer is almost always that the hype is wrong, not the reality.
This is GPT-5, or rather what they clearly intended to be GPT-5. The pricing makes it obvious that the model is massive, but what they ended up with wasn't good enough to justify calling it more than 4.5.
I stay away from everything crypto but I don't see the difference. In both cases if they didn't make it right you'd go to the courts and make your case that they are at fault and owe you compensation.
They're just different things. The FDIC insurance is for if the bank itself goes insolvent and they literally don't have enough money to cover their depositors' balances anymore. There's no reason a safe deposit box would be affected.
Yes, they are different things. A safe deposit box wouldn't be affected by the banks insolvency.
A safe deposit box may be affected by other things and if those things happen they don't have to "make it right", if you go to the courts and make your case you may find that they are not at fault and you are not owed any compensation.
Probably varies from bank to bank, but in my experience you have to specifically buy separate insurance if you want the content of your deposit box insured. The big problem from the bank's point of view is that, unlike your bank account, the bank doesn't know what you have in the box and thus has no idea what to insure it for and no way to verify any claim.
More importantly the bank doesn't profit more from something more valuable being in your safety deposit box so it doesn't make economic sense for them to be the one insuring it.
First of all they could tell, they noticed it halfway through not after the fact. I noticed it instantly when I saw an article from a site I'm not familiar with an article on a niche topic with zero timeliness.
Secondly the reason to care is that it's a waste of time. There are an infinite number of stories that sound vaguely interesting enough to click on. Previously there was a sort of filter of "and that someone actually investigated and decided it was indeed interesting enough to write about". That didn't happen here. The article tells you absolutely nothing beyond that it was retired, potentially because "new radar technologies threaten even these powerful stealth bombers. Therefore, the F-117, optimized to defeat high-frequency radars, is no longer relevant in current fights."
Is that even true? I don't know. There's a good chance it is, ChatGPT is right more often than it's wrong. But I'm pretty confident that there probably wasn't any human involved with the expertise necessary to fact check it.
And the bigger problem is that it isn't really interesting, at all. Maybe it could have been if it went into more detail into why and how exactly it stopped being effective at stealth because of modern radar. But it doesn't go into anything like that because it was written by a chatbot which was prompted by a human who only wanted some words they could publish, not any actually useful or interesting information.
