Debugging code implies a wrong way and a right way to write it, but those aren't always absolutes. It depends on the intent of the programmer, and on the design of the programme. You may have meant to hide that bit of text, or have that form never submit to anywhere, and so on, and given that the creative possibilities of code are endless, an AI can't account for all possible purposes.

This exists for image content, it's called Nightshade. In a sense it also exists for text, because Google assumes popular content is factual and not parody or fiction set in an alternative universe.

Linkedin have been pushing collaborative articles created with AI for some time now even though everybody hates them. They also suggest AI rewrites to "enhance" your profile, even though it does the opposite. Adding games is another step in prioritising eyeballs over what makes the site useful and valuable, and it will backfire. And that's a shame because even though the site can be cringy, it has some decent tech courses and worthwhile networking opportunities in certain fields.

In the terms, they ask for a model release.

That's true if the report is all your own work. A specific example of where confusion could occur is the Glasgow Willy Wonka Experience fiasco, where the promotional images were AI generated, something that wasn't mentioned in all news reports and discussions around it. The more this tech spreads, the more it will work its way into audio and visual backgrounds, sometimes by accident.

There are grey areas that this doesn't seem to account for. For instance, videos on how to identify AI, or discussing instances of its use, with examples. AI voiceovers. And where do you draw the line over incidental use?

Books, even audiobooks, are a lot less expensive to produce than TV, and there's a lot more competition for readers. That's why the most advertising you tend to get in them is a couple of pages at the end about other books by that author. The publishing world is a long way from a monopoly, long may it continue. The way to ensure it stays that way is to read outside the mainstream big 5 publishers.

Only high level politicians have staff to write speeches and press releases, at least in the UK. Certainly at council level, there aren't staff to write political material - although executive board members at district level and above will have press releases written by council press officers, but only regarding what the council is doing, so nothing party-political. At Parliamentary level there are speechwriters, but their efforts will be focused on ministers and shadow ministers. I'm a district councillor, and a huge part of the role is communication. No, I won't be using AI to write anything. Not everyone who enters politics is a professional writer, and it's important to have people of a variety of backgrounds representing people and involved in forming policy. But AI is a poor tool, and not worth it for most politicans.

Some types of reporting such as sports scores and reporting of financial figures have been automated for some time. What remains for humans are more analytical types of reports, plus the choice of what to include and what to leave out. Maybe you can automate the question of what matters most to human beings; I'm not convinced anyone would want to read that output on purpose.

There is a strong chance that this will force a lot of good content off the open web, and behind logins and/or paywalls. It will make us all worse off if that happens.

There certainly isn't one that's as all-encompassing, and that's probably a good thing. NextDoor, may be useful if you want neighbourhood news local to you - it varies a lot depending on uptake where you are, though, and works poorly with NoScript enabled. Mastodon, if you want conversation in a Twitter-like format. The tone of that very much depends on the community you join. Most Mastodon instances skew left. There's a lot of good tech-related content on WT.Social, but it's somewhat quiet.

I've noticed a big increase in friends on various social networks referring to their use of Duolingo, and other open learning platforms such as the OpenWho or OpenLearn courses. People are starting to realise that the aggravation of Facebook isn't a good use of their time, and there are better ways to use the internet.

That assumes that the US will exist in 150 years. Over that timescale many countries change borders.

Lots of households have multiple adults living in them, and sometimes those adults share the same name. Very rarely this will be namesakes, but more often when children are given the same name as a parent. So it's possible - but Amazon should verify this somehow. This seems to be a reaction though to Amazon's move to insist reviews are written by accounts that have spent at least a certain amount each year. So it's an arms race - the next step will be packages sent to people with slightly different names, but not so different that it can't be mistaken for a typo (eg Jon Smith instead of John Smith).

Is this research broken down by industry types, or focused mainly on IT? And did you study the differences between household types and also income levels, because I'd say who else is at home is a key to whether WFH can succeed with enough space and silence to get work done when needed. My local council has invested heavily in property funds, so the question of office space valuations is of great interest. If the value of commercial offices crashes it will affect more parts of the economy than many people would suspect. Is any of this research published, and if so where?