Not the person you’re responding to, but I think that the argument “we shouldn’t do X because no other animals do it” is a bad argument in general and overall weakens your position. Because there are plenty of things that humans do that animals don’t do that are good (like developing and applying vaccines for example).

There are plenty of other valid and good reasons to promote dairy alternatives (such as health or environmental reasons).

Yep, this seems like the exact kind of thing companies would enforce with MDM.

I know one of my previous companies would enforce certain settings were changed if you wanted to install the MDM profile on a BYOD phone (like minimum 8 digit PIN), so requiring you to opt out of OpenAI Siri integration seems like a policy MDMs would offer.

(Though I would never install a company’s MDM profile on my personal phone lol - if they want me to be accessible and have work apps, they can provide a separate work phone)

Right and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with not being neutral in that case. The original commenter said it’s “neutral corpo-speak” which I disagree with. Corporations would be all wishy washy or intentionally vague as you mentioned.

I don’t think of “politically neutral” and objective as synonymous. I think of politically neutral as attempting to appease or not piss of any sides. Being objective will often piss off one side (and we all know which side that is).

ChatGPT doesn’t actually give you a neutral answer lol. It flat out tells you climate change is real.

Edit: Just to be clear since it seems people are misunderstanding: I agree with ChatGPT. I don’t see objectivity and being neutral as being synonymous. And not being neutral in this case imo is a good thing. You shouldn’t be neutral if a side is clearly stupid and (as another user put it) is the enemy of objective data.