[ben_w]

It's not particularly advanced, it's the same thing that means the supermajority of websites have opted for "click here to consent to our 1200 partners processing everything you do on our website" rather than "why do we need 1200 partners anyway?"

It's still bad, don't get be wrong, it's just something I can distinguish.

[CRConrad]

I think those websites actually have only one partner, one of the tiny oligopoly of advertisement brokers. That partner (*cough*Google*cough*), in turn, bows to the fig leaf of user consent via those interminable dialogs. So the site owners' question should probably be "Why do we need to partner with this behemoth that shackles us to 1200 'partners?".

[Intralexical]

If it fools billions of people and does significant damage to the lives of people, then it's plenty advanced to me, even if it happens through a more simple or savant-like process than something that looks obviously deliberate.

I don't think the cookies thing is a good example. That's passive incompetence, to avoid the work of changing their business models. Altman actively does more work to erode people's rights.

> It's still bad, don't get be wrong, it's just something I can distinguish.

Can you? Plausible deniability is one of the first things in any malicious actor's playbook. "I meant well…" If there's no way to know, then you can only assess the pattern of behavior.

But realistically, nobody sapient accidentally spends multiple years building elaborate systems for laundering other people's IP, privacy, and likeness, and accidentally continues when they are made aware of the harms and explicitly asked multiple times to stop…