FYI, replying "Stupid. Will not read" is less effort.
473 karma · joined April 13, 2009
I'd encourage everyone here to propagate the idea their business model is selling publicly recorded video of children to pedophiles.
I think the red team is only now starting to come to similar terms, and will increasingly do so as the blue team continues to maximally exercises power against their opponents instead of revitalize the tarnished reputation of instituions.
Around 2030, the US will need to spend 100% of it's tax revenue to service the debt, and California will need to a federal bailout or risk either default or wiping out their state pensions. I believe the coming financial disaster will likely be the catalyst that quiets the 'nothing ever happens' crowd, and both teams will need to reset their politics to the new world, distinctly different than the post-WW2 open society liberal consensus.
A similar phenomenon is happening in Europe.
Letitia James campaigned on putting her political opponents in prison and then proceeded to try doing so.
This isn't difficult to understand.
If the government fails, then you briefly get anarchy and violence until people organize into groups and use more violence to quash the anarchists. This repeats until there is only one group remaining, and that group is the government going forward.
Because the question that belies all of this is whether still makes financial or economic sense in the age of LLMs for tax-payers to fund mathematics research.
Up until recently, they've had a true ivory-tower to dismiss such criticism, but as LLMs have demonstrated, that approach won't survive going forward, so pure mathematics are up in arms. They genuinely don't know how to justify their jobs.
You probably won't.
As far as the legal system is concerned, an employee operating an LLM is no different than an employee operating heavy construction equipment. The employer is liable for maintaining the equipment, ensuring employees are sufficiently qualified to operate the equipment, and continuously following policies and procedures to avoid harm when operating the machine. Merely instructing employees they're responsible for using the machine safely as determined by their own judgement isn't legally defensible.
That said, your employer might be stupid and fire you anyways. So if that happens, you'll should talk to a lawyer and bring your employer court for wrongful termination. It will take time, but you'll almost certainly get a very nice settlement payout. There's only downside risk for a company to be a involved with a novel legal dispute, and they'll pay handsomely to avoid it.
DigitalOcean is a business, and believe they'll get more ROI from sponsoring Omarchy than sponsoring other projects. It's really not difficult to grasp.
These people just believe they're entitled to others money.
As a practical matter though, it's completely unenforceable in the US.
It's pretty clear Epstein was in involved with intelligence agencies. Which ones, or if he was acting independent isn't interesting to me. The reality of the world is at a nation-state level, anything outside your borders is anarchy. Intelligence agencies take advantage of that—it why throughout human history the punishment for espionage has been a slow and painful death. Another reality of the world is the panopticon also applies to intelligence agencies, and sometimes they need financial institutions and other transnational corporations to look the other way on things, e.g., there's a lot of civilian ships in shipping lanes comprised entirely of paramilitary folks.
Why would intelligence agencies risk uncovering the financial networks necessary to do their job, and why would they implicate many companies and individuals inside those companies for very serious crimes?
From an anarchist perspective, the idea that a government can't allow certain companies and individuals managing significant geopolitical and economic interests to break the law is nonsensical. If a government passed a law that required everyone to starve, out of self preservation the government would simply allow everyone to break the law. The real world is no different.
If you believe Epstein was some puppet-master of the ruling class for some other ambiguous evil person/group, what do you think you think is going to happen if that were to be made public? Imagine such revelations get 9/11-level media coverage. Do you honestly believe that the ruling class will miraculously step-aside?
During WW2, the Allies used flame throwers for goodness sake and killed a lot of innocent people taking Europe back from the Nazis.
If you made this argument in the 1940s, you would've been dragged out of your home and beaten half to death. And it would be for good reason. :)
There's no pseudo-intellectual moral argument that stands up to might-is-right. In the real world, that's how it works, regardless how much you disagree.
It's unfortunate that most societies have outlawed this practice. I'm certain if that were in place today, we wouldn't have this problem.
I've yet to hear any alternative solution that's as effective.
The datacenter build-outs are all majority (>50% ownership) financed by other companies, with a shell company owned by the hyperscaler as a minority owner. The data center then grants the hyperscaler an exclusive leasing agreement, and because the shell company is a minority owner, legally, it's not their debt.
The only reason this has worked is because there's such a long delay taking delivery on GPUs. When these capital allocators start paying for GPUs in data centers which haven't yet broken ground, then we'll see a very visceral market reaction. Some of that has already happened, but there's enough momentum that it can be absorbed and dismissed as an anomaly. But with governments unexpectedly passing moratoriums on data centers everywhere, it's only a matter of time before there's no data center to offload those GPUs to. That's when the music stops.
I believe that was Zitron's central thesis and why he started reporting on this. It mirrors the mortgage-backed securities situation that led to the 2008 GFC, except with even fewer guard rails to prevent financial calamity.
Investors are very savvy and keenly aware of what's going to happen. There's just zero incentive to pull the fire alarm and risk being blamed for crashing the market. If you're wondering why everyone's running toward the exits instead of treating these tech companies as 10+ year investments, you have your answer.
It's one thing to generate some code and ship it, but it's another when your developers don't understand said code and it brings down production. If the model refuses to assist debugging the problem because it triggers some safety mechanism, you might be fucked.