In A.I. Race, Microsoft and Google Choose Speed over Caution

> The urgency to build with the new A.I. was crystallized in an internal email sent last month by Sam Schillace, a technology executive at Microsoft. He wrote in the email, which was viewed by The New York Times, that it was an “absolutely fatal error in this moment to worry about things that can be fixed later.”

I wonder what the list of "things that can be fixed later" is and when would "latter" be.

if microsoft and (particularly) google are "speedy" in this, then what the open (open source, etc.) projects (like stable diffusion) are? the level of 'whatever, we don't really care, whatever happens, happens, just ship it' that stable diffusion and the explosion of sd-based projects/apps/services (and other similar open source projects that are easy to utilize/fork/replicate/etc.) that will just 'do stuff' without much care or concern - how could that be described? 'scorching, incinerating speed'?

at this point, why even really 'care' or 'be concerned about' these ai projects, when existing projects just move ahead and don't give a damn about things? creators of such projects certainly don't, and people...kinda no longer do (if only due to helplessness, since projects will just move ahead (along with people's data they scraped, which people still can't do much about), without much concern).

if anything, there might be a vague worry about the eventual openly available chatgpt-like thing that would really be at the level and power of it. but I don't really think people are gonna be that 'concerned'. certainly not the creators of them, who just move along and make more and more of their AI apps and services, without stuff like 'caution' on their roadmap. things continue to get implemented in their lackadaisical non-approach to actually implementing systems that'd let people manage ai in better ways (or, like, at all), and have some control and accountability over it. (such as, 'being able to pluck out data and opt-out from a system/model/whatever on request' - but who cares about that, right. so, currently there's no substantial, workable development of such system, not from the first parties (the actual companies that create and train ai systems like that), and "third party" systems remain somewhat of an non-functioning smokescreen that those companies get to point at like 'we did something'.)

so, whatever. i guess it doesn't really matter, and we're just gonna move along and find out later when something crashes and burns, cause that's the general approach here. and it might not even be all that wrong.

Another perspective: If a company that invests in this would ever even remotely claim they have a sustainability and decarbonization plan they should be laughed out of the room from now on.

Move fast and break things.