

I remember reading a report earlier this year which said that most people who used AI at work found that they didn’t have much use for it and it didn’t make them more productive. So that tracks.
Makes sense that tech CEOs are still pushing it as the miracle tech which will make humans obsolete, though.










In 1998 Marcellus Williams was convicted of murder. During the appeals processes it was found that he was not a match for any of the copious forensic evidence at the crime scene. He was convicted entirely on the testimony of two people with long records of lying to authorities and who stood to gain leniency in prosecutions for unrelated matters in exchange for their testimony. The prosecutor and the victims family spoke out against the push to execute him, in light of the exculpatory evidence.
It was ultimately determined that being innocent wasn’t a good enough reason not to execute, and he was killed in September of last year. 22 years in prison and then executed despite no evidence he committed the crime and strong evidence that he didn’t.
If being provably innocent isn’t enough to stop an execution, then what possibly could be?