Yes, I think we need to give them and others a soft landing spot where they can save at least a little face. We should help them lean into the narrative that “Trump lied and tricked his supporters into thinking he had virtuous, selfless objectives.” The more we scold them for not seeing what we’ve been screaming for over a decade, the more likely they will dig their heels in just to save face.

Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful drug.

I think another reasonable thing is for our justice systems to tie human responsibility/culpability to the actions of AI (or whatever we may be calling these computing advancements in the future).

Replace the buzzword “AI” with “computing advancement” or (more broadly) “technological advancement.”

I think that makes it easier to see how the analogies in the comic strip are meaningless to the basic pattern that our technology has been advancing and will continue advancing, unless or until societal collapse (and maybe not even then if, by then, technology has reached the point where it can start creating its own advancements).

Can someone explain this to me… Because the lawsuit was filed in federal court and had a judge working the case, the judge has to approve the settlement. But Trump came to this agreement with the DOJ and withdrew the case in a way that wouldn’t require the judge to approve it. But doesn’t that mean that this agreement is technically not a settlement to the case, and therefore it is meaningless?

Thanks for the detailed history. That was fun to read, and you landed it perfectly back at the initial site.