I think there's a certain type that you're talking about that does tend towards energy drinks like that, but it's not true in the other direction, as that type is a minority of energy drink drinkers. Just a particularly noticeable one.
I've not been a fan of them myself since I was a teenager years ago, but I've worked with quite a few people in all sorts of roles, whose drink of choice was whatever their favourite energy drink was, either having one occasionally or between one and a few a day, while being completely relaxed, mature, and just nothing to do with any sort of stereotypes you might think of in connection with energy drinks.
Sure, I guess I've just worked at enough startups that advertise "keeping the fridge full of Red Bull" as some kind of perk, when in reality it kind of ends up being a code for "you'd better enjoy working long, long hours".
I mean, there's more than enough reasons to criticise or laugh at the UK that actually exist, without mocking a country for a hypothetical of someone online that hasn't actually been proposed by any politicians or, well, anybody at all?
It is incredibly annoying at the self-checkout being asked to present PHOTO ID to buy a monster energy. I was once denied my beverage, so I walked back over to the meal deal area and purchased a Starbucks canned coffee that had THE SAME LEVEL OF CAFFIENE
You're making the mistake of assuming it has something to do with the caffeine content or caffeine being illegal.
There's one pattern that all these rules have in common: Someone noticed a problem, so they added friction to try and reduce the problem. People are getting fucked up on Red Bull? Add friction to buying a Red Bull. People aren't getting fucked up on coffee? Then don't add friction to coffee. I know us engineer personalities would like to define uniform rules for all caffeinated products or not define any rules, and that's what you should do if you are making a medical robot to maintain someone's caffeine level, but that isn't really how the social world works. It's a quite straightforward loop of observation->response.
If the private subsidiary was doing semi-unrelated stuff to the goals of the non-profit, and using it to fund the non-profit, then your logic could make sense - for example if a cancer research charity owned a profitable business and funnelled the profits up to spend on research, great.
But in OpenAI's case, the claimed goals of the non-profit were essentially "do AI in a way that puts safety above profits". And whether or not one agrees with their previous approach to safety, or even whether safety needs to be cared about, it's undeniable that the for-profit business isn't acting as useful fundraising for the non-profit's goals, it's literally acting in the opposite direction.
> it's undeniable that the for-profit business isn't acting as useful fundraising for the non-profit's goals, it's literally acting in the opposite direction
It's generally not up to your or to me, it's up to the donors to the non-profit. If what you find to be undeniable is very much deniable to them, then that is their right.
The only question of public concern is whether OpenAI, Inc., a charity, meets the exemption requirements [1].
Well, you don't know if they do, or if they were just capitalising the start of their sentence while not feeing that the word needs a capital letter in and of itself.
(But yeah, personally I would capitalised both counties regardless of spelling/which name used.)
It partly depends on whether "time spent on screens" is counting time where a person's attention is primarily on the screen, or time when a screen is actively directed at a person.
As a few examples from my life (I'm sure there are plenty of other such scenarios too):
- There are quite a few hours in a typical week where my phone screen is showing a video, but just because I can't have it playing in the background (eg YouTube without premium, although actually I've just installed a third party app to get around that for YT). I'm actually just listening with a wireless earpiece or two while doing something else.
- Time spent with a friend where we're sort of watching TV, but more than half the time our attention is on our conversation not on the screen.
- Time spent multitasking, whether that's doing a hobby while also watching TV, or texting people while also eating, or whatever.
Those types of things can make the difference between a certain amount of screen time being a much smaller or much bigger part of a person's day.
The only case I would consider this being a misleading part of the statistic would be (1), and that type of usage is probably too rare to be significant.
Multitasking "while watching TV" is probably still harmful. Just focus on the task. For me personally, having the screen there has led to increased anxiousness and loss of my sense of time.
Watching TV with a friend is probably less harmful, but its still "just" sitting in front of that screen with little activity going on.
It does kind of depend what you're watching/listening to, but humans need extended time away from that constant stream of media regardless
I agree that the TV part isn't particularly great itself, but over the years I've had plenty of late nights with TV on ( not as many as with music, which would be my choice if at home) where I can remember conversations had but no memory of what was on the TV
> "more than 6 in 10 people declare they already use AI for mental health questions. 42% of them almost always follow the advice it gives them."
If these numbers were "of people who regularly use GenAI chat tools" then I'd be surprised it was quite so high already, but not shocked and would find it completely believable.
But this seems to be "of all people surveyed", which I'm rather skeptical of - unless their sample was very biased (as an extreme example, if they recruited people to the survey only by linking to it in ChatGPT ads, but there are plenty of less extreme ways to get a sample group that's way more likely to use AI than a genuinely random sample of the whole population).
It's also worth noting (and perhaps somewhat explains numbers seeming so unrealistically high to me) that, unless I've misunderstood, "turn to AI for psychological support" isn't necessarily "using AI as a therapist", it could be uses as minor as asking "Can exercise help with my depression?" or "If I think I am having a nervous breakdown, should I talk to a doctor?"
This is almost certainly from an online panel survey of people who are paid to take surveys, which is a mini-industry in itself, people try to make a living taking as many as they can for a few cents. The people who fill these out are completely unrepresentative of the general population and quite a few are probably having their openclaw fill it out for them.
Not sure if you saw this, but it says at the footer:
> 1.Methodology: The study was carried out in collaboration with IPSOS among 19,000 adults aged 18 to 75 across 18 countries, between 12 January and 16 February 2026.
If the Ipsos stock price is any indicator of surveys still being viable in 2026, then I can only wonder what actually motivates comments like this.
That being said, if the actual study cannot be reproduced, it's not science. So I'm looking forward to seeing the method and not the conclusion scrutinized. There's a lot of cognitive dissonance right now, especially in the US, when it comes to perceptions about mental health.
Did you get that link from an LLM? Did you actually read it? That is not the methodology page for this survey. That is a general article on the kinds of survey methods you can contract with Ipsos to run.
Sorry, what do you mean by "To not own the model is not viable in 2026."
I assume I'm misunderstanding you (likely my fault), because the way I read that is that you're saying nobody should currently be using models owned & hosted by companies like OpenAI and Antheopic, while clearly a huge number of people are using those in 2026 despite not owning them.
But isn't the current understanding that harness is equally important as model once you get above a certain threshold, so there seems to be room to add value there.
Cursor is potentially about to be acquired by X.ai (i.e. SpaceX), unless this is just some IPO game being played by Musk. They are certainly not just a token reseller since they have their own models in addition to their own vector database approach for code matching.
But I believe since then Anthropic have raised more money, almost certainly diluting Google's stake (I could be wrong and misremembering that Google didn't partake in the additional fundraising). I have in the back of my head that Google is down to something like 10% now, but don't have time to go and find details to fact check that, sorry!
Of course that's not to say that the advertising situation will be identical to that of pre-LLM search engines, and the differences may lead to radically different economic models and user experiences. But I was just correcting your statement.
This may vary by country, it isn't a subject I'm particularly familiar with, but at least in the UK that isn't true - many, I think most, life insurance policies here do pay out for suicide. There's just a period of years between the start of the policy and when suicide starts to be covered, to prevent people who are planning on killing themselves from being able to take out insurance just before doing so.
I've not been a fan of them myself since I was a teenager years ago, but I've worked with quite a few people in all sorts of roles, whose drink of choice was whatever their favourite energy drink was, either having one occasionally or between one and a few a day, while being completely relaxed, mature, and just nothing to do with any sort of stereotypes you might think of in connection with energy drinks.
reply