They remove the text and sell your data, you guys complain; they leave it and sell your data, you guys complain. They just can’t win. /s

How do you stay accountable when you don’t set limits in your own term?

You don’t. Even if they’re in office, there’s nothing you can do. What do you think they’d do to Biden? Jail him? Fine him? You vote in people who align with what you want put in place, then have the separate parts of government check each other.

I don’t mind long-term goals, we need them, but there should be milestones

I addressed that in my previous comment. Nobody’s wasting time and resources. Such a limitation would cripple every president and make them damn near useless. They’d spend most of their time in office recalculating milestones, which would be incredibly small, at best, and impossible at worst.

frankly I’m surprised it’s apparently an unpopular opinion.

Because it kinda indicates that you haven’t really thought about this or you’re just not aware of how things happen in life. You’re coming off as management that’s never worked on the floor and have no idea about what’s actually feasible. It’s a good way to have everybody despise you.

Using this as an example, let’s say it was done at the start of Biden’s 1st year, what percentage should he set per what time period, and do you really expect car manufacturers to recreate their vehicles each period?

Manufacturers need time to meet targets. And the final percentage would be incredibly small, because it would be only four years. Whenever you see a product hit the market, development has starts years prior.

What targets exactly? Should every policy be limited to just their term? That completely removes the possibility of any target that takes a long time to reach. It would be a waste of time and resources to do smaller increments and then revisit them.

Almost every policy put into place will have effects that future presidents have to deal with. Do you actually care about this in principle or do you just not like this policy?

Finally, a sane response. Of course they’ll “sound similar” because they’re both female voices attempting to come off as friendly with an American accent.

I’m more on the side of opposing AI implementations but people are really reaching with this one. I’m assuming it was pulled just so they can get their legal defense in order.

This will be another case like any other, where they take it to court, and there is no real basis for anything

Because then they’ll give up whoever it was that they used to voice the AI and it’ll be mostly over. The thing is though that if they rush into a lawsuit too eagerly, nobody’s going to want to work with them under a similar contract.