And yet the men (mostly) who birthed these nightmares into the world are still celebrated.
Not to mention that these so-called titans of industry are going to crash the economy.
The world would be a better place if we could physically put all those people on the I-beam in that picture and then push them off it. Every single one is complete garbage as are their companies.
Recall that Hitler was Person of the Year once-Time has been on record as the title in question NOT necessarily being intended as praise or endorsement of the entity’s views, just that they are noteworthy in some way, for good or bad.
That was their justification when they named Khomeini person of the year in 1979, too. But they got such a raft of shit about it, they’ve consistently shied away from “negative but noteworthy/impactful” ever since. I mean, who in 2001 was a more impactful individual than Osama bin Laden? And they went with the eye-roll of Giuliani instead? Their intention with the pick from 1979 forward has never been worse than “neutral acknowledgement” but usually there’s some element of respect to it. The “but they named Hitler!” retort is weak and meaningless at this point.
They did choose Vladimir Putin in 2007. But I’m not sure what level of ‘real life Bond villain’ he was considered to be yet, at that time.
In 1938 Hitler was a mere strutting blowhard, the German equivalent of El Presidente who had nonetheless made Germany relevant to international politics again.
Much like their companies, in that picture the existence of support for their positions is only implied.
As the old saying goes, you can’t spell Christmas without Chr7sst.
Hehehe, there’s no manger or Jeebus in that image that I can see. They’re just adoring a blank spot.
Some people don’t put the Jesus doll in until actual Christmas Day. I’m assuming this pic was taken before the day.
Yes, that is almost certainly a real, physical manger display in a church. The text on the screen above it is the only AI. The text was lazily made with a primitive, outdated AI model. If the whole image was AI, then it is one very, very good at photorealism.
Text is mostly a solved problem for the most modern AI models. I played around a bit with this theme, using these prompts:
Summary
A manger display inside the front of a church. A glurgy Christmas message is projected on a screen above the display. Scattered church members stand around the display. Iphone 15 photo.
A Christmas Card with a manger scene and a glurgy holiday message.
A Christmas Card with a manger scene and a glurgy holiday message. The image is a photograph of posed 1980s toys.
A Christmas Card with a manger scene and a glurgy holiday message. The image is a photograph of posed 1980s Japanese robot toys.
The two “classic” types I would not be surprised to see at the local dollar-store or indie drugstore rack.
If you count motion-capture robots as AI (and I do), you might find this funny:
It should be in the online encyclopedia under “Laws of Unintended Consequences.” I do feel for the guy, though.
I was checking to see when my school was playing in a bowl game this year, and was surprised to discover that AI can predict the future! AI says:
Overview
The University of Utah (U of U) football team played in the SRS Distribution Las Vegas Bowl on New Year’s Eve (December 31, 2025) against Nebraska, winning the game 31-24. The Utes, led by new head coach Morgan Scalley for the game, defeated the Cornhuskers in a thrilling contest at Allegiant Stadium.
Our new overlords are getting damn good!
Video in the link;
Back when I was working in importing products from the States, I had a tech who would lie about things he had done. He would say had had done a particular check on some products when he hadn’t. Random lying wound up not being conducive to long term employment. Who would have guessed?
I don’t understand AI enough to understand why it hallucinates football scores. It does seem to prevent trust, though.
I’m just going to butt in here again to defend AI against all the doomsayers. It’s been said here about a million times – yes, AI systems like ChatGPT sound authoritative, but may be wrong sometimes, and should not be relied on. For sure. No argument.
And yet … when I had some questions about the functionality of my new car, GPT answered them perfectly and accurately (I had no idea that the trunk lock had a “normal” and “secure” position! The manual contains all needed information, but not necessarily organized the way you would expect). And GPT provided some important insights and questions to ask at my upcoming medical specialist appointment that will reveal far more information to me than just going in as an ignorant doofus.
It’s not just a search engine. The answers were extensive and detailed and exactly tailored to my needs. Were there inaccuracies? Probably somewhere. But on balance, the responses were incredibly useful to me, and the ability to ask more questions in a preserved context is extremely crucial to the value of the whole system, allowing the user to iterate their way to exactly the information they were looking for.
Ars Technica has a pretty good round up of the state of AI this year.