Google used to have a deny/block list. But such lists are obviously very advertising unfriendly, since the companies paying for placement and running the most ads are most likely to be blocked.

They have one, it's just centralised and blocks the good sites.

If the MBAs/Managers/HR can not find a way to utilize their now more productive workers, they should be replaced.

They have, they utilise them to replace all the other workers they let go. It's a two line metric, productivity must go up, costs must go down. They want to do more with less, not more with the same.

I turned mine off permanently after spending time in New Jersey, that region positively spammed them.

New Jersey "government-ize-ed" this quite a while with a database that's quite abused. But every US hospital does genetics testing for allergies (a few for milk and similar that are nearly a death sentence for the new born).

NJ is just ahead of giving law enforcement access whenever it wants for searches, and renting the data to whoever pays.

Exec Bonuses being able to be clawed back for Security issues is just about the only fix that will have real effects. Anything else will have MBAs believing it's a "next guy" problem, and a obstacle to hitting their objectives.

Though right now the US thinks it's winning the Security Vulnerability Stockpile war, so it won't change the state quo.

Europe is implementing a law that requires software made for profit to hit at least industry security standards. Punishments include the purchaser being able to sue the seller as well as jail time for execs.

At some point, we need to push back against the reality in the US that we have effectively no way to stop mass harvesting (and then breaching) of our PII -- and there's basically zero downside to companies when it happens.

And how do you enact exec bonuses being clawed back? They're often the most connected people in the company to those setting the rules of the company, the board.

Hell, some companies have a CEO that has an absolute majority of voting power, meaning they cannot be held accountable and made to implement changes like the one you suggest.

I would put some blame on medical billing, and the opiods pandemic also made some fertile ground for trolls (a work injury turning family member to an addict, followed by minimal fines and zero jail time for the conspirators that grew the pandemic). Basically a perfect setup to grow mistrust.

Just a couple of decades ago both sides of the US political aisles laughed at antivax style rhetoric, and didn't see forcing the issue further than it was as worth it (us religious grounds and similar).

One that doesn't maim/injure/kill you is a pretty good standard. And before you call bs, look at all the foraging and chemistry books that are for sale on Amazon that are AI.

why are those ai chemistry books any different than the anarchist cookbook which can also be bought on Amazon? actually now that I think about it a faulty chemistry book might be less dangerous than a book that teachers readers how to make explosives.

There's a difference between something that properly advertised itself as dangerous, and something that advertises itself as a professional authority.

It was a scheduled Trump win, from how demotivating Harris was. Sure Trump demotivated a little over a million or two from bothering to show up to the polls for him, Harris was five to ten times that number (depending on whose numbers you use).

Unfortunately this AI ship has the US economy lashed to its bow, and the moment it begins to founder we're all going to have to hold our breath for a while in the best case. Thought leaders are all out of ideas that don't have AI in them (and even that ideation is probably being delegated to an LLM these days).