infinitezest

This is just adding noise. Even if true, it's still very, very bad. Why even bother saying this?

Ah, the famed "Nuh-Uh" defense. The fact is, Tech companies and the bros that head them have all of the money, all of the connections, and all of the information. Those of us not on that side of the equation do not. They may not be the initial cause of so many problems but they certainly have accelerated and deepened a great many of them in their race to extract (somehow) even more wealth from the societies that host them. We aren't nearly angry enough at them IMO.

... Until they reach a certain size and then "customers" are just an annoying detail in the quest to maximize share holder value.

You're building your livelihood/workflows on a set of inputs that you have no idea what they actually cost or how reliable they'll be when the VC cash stops flowing. If you're OK with that, do your thing but it seems a little foolish to me.

Can't you see? We're just trying to build a better cigarette! Flavored to your specific tastes! You'll thank us, you'll see!

You're going to have a very uphill battle making a case that he's making America stronger in any commonly held definition of the word. Partisanship is a hell of a drug, man...

And US lack of munitions stronger.

If sarcasm, this is very funny.

What would _you_ call the top 10% richest people in the world? Middle upper, upper, upper, upper class?

Maybe if you don't, the problem will go away.

I think OP is talking about datacenters which likely use a little more power than your home rig.

> please never change I've got bad news for you...

I think you're going to have to flesh this out a little more, friend. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Because the economic, social, and climate impacts are at best uncertain and at worst devastating to the majority of human beings on the planet. It's always surprising to me that people don't intuitively separate the usefulness of AI from its risks. It feels like everyone has to be a doomer or a booster.

Beautifully put. This exactly summarizes my feelings about this particular tech. I actually find it hugely useful. But I fear we lack the wisdom to use this in a way that won't destroy us.

It's really surprising how many people fail to account for scale when determining the risks presented by some of this new tech.

What's your main use case? Maps?

Suggesting that a robot is the more privacy friendly option is an interesting take.

Is heroin the same as beer? Who even knows.

Based on what we _do_ know, I have serious doubts that this admin could keep a secret if they wanted to.

People with access to enormous wealth tend to get a lot of chances at the betting table.

Are these sources not incentivized to say exactly this, regardless of whether it's true?

If you work in this industry? Not really.

Aren't there laws against selling tobacco to minors? And advertising to them? Your analogy is supporting the opposite conclusion.

"You sound defensive"

What an incredibly creative retelling of history

And they can't hear you from under the enormous pile of debt they're fighting to overcome. Maybe try again in 2028.

A lot of manufacturers are bailing on consumer lines to focus on enterprise from what I've read. Not great.

> When you let the cat out of the box yourself...

I could say the same thing to you. Go back a few more years to his first term, to his campaign. He is absolutely the main architect of the chaos that has ensued. You don't get to start fights and then get mad when people fight back. The selective outrage you're demonstrating here is baffling.

Maybe that was also bad. And maybe the current admin is still more brazen, less accountable, more selfish and more vindictive. Why even bring this up? Should we not care about this because other people did bad stuff?