If it is illegal for a human to participate in the planning of a shooting, it must equally be illegal for an AI.
If the AI is not held accountable, and by extension the people responsible for the AI, then AI can be used for all sorts of illegal shit, with nobody being punished for it.

Even the average tech person doesn’t know what it means.
The term was coined by Christine Peterson of the Free software movement, and is defined to specify software that is free and open source (FOSS).
This was after problems with the term “free software” because it was a bad term, that was hijacked to also include software free of cost but closed and proprietary, so far from open source. And free was not generally understood as free as in libre.
After the Free software movement coined the term. The Free Software Foundation also adopted it, and to distinguish they called it FLOSS, for “Free as in Libre and Open Source Software”, where the libre means that the code is protected from being “jailed” because it has a so called strong copyleft license, like for instance GPL. So MIT, BSD and public domain are not FLOSS but they are FOSS.

https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software

/Nothing in this life is simple.

There were allegedly investigations into Tesla in USA too, that were stopped by Trump and the Musk DOGE program.
But this has nothing to do with the obvious fraud they did in Canada.

Yes it’s an all around horrible car, it’s kind of impressive it has stayed in the market for as long as it has. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it is discontinued soon.

The AI group on the other hand got into the flow of formulating math problems to ChatGPT and then had to actually solve three math problems themselves

That’s what the friggin test is about! So of course they did.

Of course it’s only the rear wheel drive ones, that’s what this is all about?!
Still it’s lame to only sell 173 of a cheaper version, the sales on day 1 should have been higher than that.

There are still plenty of other idiots who were dumb enough to put down even more money

Not so much, sales of Cybertruck have been plummeting, already last year they dropped 48%. And this year will probably be worse.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-cybertruck-sales-elon-musk/

That 48% loss is allegedly the biggest drop of any EV in 2025. And that is despite Musk bought up Cybertrucks himself through SpaceX. Boosting sales by more than 1300 Cybertrucks in the 4th quarter alone!
Meaning that Musk bought 20% of the Cybertrucks sold in Q4 2025 himself. 🤣 🤣 🤣

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-05-05/how-many-cybertrucks-has-tesla-sold-to-public-far-fewer-than-you-might-think

Yes indeed they did, and Tesla came under investigation and the tax deductions were withdrawn as fraudulent.
I am not aware of the result of the investigation, but I bet Tesla would have advertised it if they were cleared.

Yes kind of, but that’s not the same as being public, but a report based on 3rd party information.

The official Tesla Cybertruck numbers are bunched together with Model S and Model X.
Which is also why the very poor sales of the cheaper model is news.

Yep ALL 173 cars sold!!
There’s a reason the Cybertruck sales aren’t public.

Ah yes the classic blaming the messenger argument, that is one of the most obvious and stupid fallacies.

The picture you post contradict your claims. The 2 groups are getting the same question, but one has AI assistance, the other has not.
Again you fail to show anything to support your claims.

Yes the article reporting on a research paper has an agenda, and not the random guy ignoring the evidence to contradict it. With absolutely zero to show for your argument, and clearly using flawed logic.

All I hear is the laugh of ignorance.

Carpenters trained on power tools will suddenly perform worse with hand tools than carpenters who were never given power tools.

Now you are just making shit up. None of these examples are about people being trained on AI. The comparison would be if a carpenter using power tolls for 10 minutes, suddenly becomes worse at using the traditional tools he is trained to use.

Your claim is baseless, there is no evidence for it, and the lack of any evidence of it, makes it an unreasonable assumption based on your prejudice alone, and should not be believed.

Let people have AI and perform better with it.

Again a very loaded statement, nobody is preventing anybody from using AI based on this research. But maybe people are not really performing better, or at least not always, it may depend on the task.

Your logic is fundamentally flawed and inconsistent, and you seem to lack any ability to see this as a potential problem, so much so that it reeks of you having an agenda.

Your flawed logic and prejudice does not beat 3 research papers.

In academia it is normal not to directly spell out things that are obvious to a person with academic knowledge on the subject, research papers are meant for scholars, and they are supposed to be able to read and understand the consequences for themselves.

So you can’t use it as an argument that it isn’t spelled out, if it can be easily derived by a person who understands the subject.
Research papers do not spell out every possible consequence of their findings.

The calculator test might be good for comparison, and I’m pretty sure if given the same amount of time, and one group being allowed to use calculator for half the test, that group would solidly outperform a group not using calculators at all.

I was in 5th grade in 1975, and we were the first class to get calculators in 5th grade. Which became the standard for many years after.
I have never heard complaints about students being less capable of understanding basic math problems because they use calculators. Although the idea of using calculators in schools were heavily debated. It’s similar to people not getting worse at spelling from using a dictionary.

The sessions lasted about 10 minutes, suggesting that those who decided to rely heavily on AI to solve problems for them abandoned their critical thinking abilities in a matter of minutes.

And the ability to think critically to detect it declines. So it’s doubly harmful!

That sounds a lot like what the studies show. And IMO that sounds like a serious problem.

You are disregarding the last paragraph, where 2 other studies showed similar results, without having the “disruptive” factor.

A calculator is not the same problem, it doesn’t reduce our general ability to think critically.