

Makes sense given that AI has been trained on all the prejudiced blatherings of humanity so far, and it just tries to imitate what it has seen. Yet it’s being used to make decisions as if it’s some wise oracle.


Your criteria exclude much that is useful. For example, scientific studies that confirm theoretical predictions or replicate previous results, which are both essential to good science. Your emphasis seems to be entirely on challenging established understandings and institutions and shaking things up, but if that’s the only thing you respect as not “drivel”, you just end up pushing contrarianism. Sometimes it’s valuable to agree, or to come to consensus. Sometimes it’s valuable to delve into the subtleties of an existing way of understanding the world. Sometimes it’s valuable to explore how others already understand the world, while keeping quiet and not asserting anything of your own until you are well steeped in it. Not everything needs to be shaken up or disrupted all the time - to look only for this is the unwisdom of hubristic tech bros and conspiracists.


They have played us for absolute fools.


It could actually be a good thing, since it opens up the possibility of unsnoopable channels of communication, using encryption that would be disrupted by any attempt to intercept it.
Google Maps in Android Auto does it, but I think they use Waze data.