Right, what the free market wants to do is levelize our standard of living with our low-cost competitors, or import all the chips from them (with the security and supply risks that entails).

Simply shaming Intel for seeking government handouts does not solve our problem - how to maintain a domestic industry including internal competition rather than government choosing the winners and subsidizing incompetence.

From here in my comfortable chair it's hard to judge how bad the situation is, vs. to what extent it might be a form of protest by somebody who just doesn't like self-driving cars. There has been vandalism and harassment of a few types, from setting them on fire to calling dozens of them to the same place at the same time to cause gridlock. In San Francisco there was a huge flap because a waymo ran over a cat.

OK, it could be argued the government is the problem in the first place, since laws are a big part of why production here is economically nonviable. The problem is how specifically to solve that? Each law is there for a reason. It's easy to dismiss regulation broadly but harder in each given case.

If the US as a whole were a good place for this, a happy market solution would be for Intel to be eaten alive by another American competitor until either regains its competency or goes away. But surely you can see the national security risks of the more likely outcome - our supply depending on potential adversaries, including all the chips in critical infrastructure and defense hardware.

That is the basic problem, they don't. Mass-producing semiconductors in the USA without subsidies is not economically viable. The CHIPS act (or equivalently, tariffs) is an effort to tip the financial scales in favor of maintaining domestic production, for national security (so we can't be "cut off" by other nations). But such a scheme will not work if it is not executed in a financially predictable manner.

The question is whether the ads will be separate, like banner ads (albeit probably informed by your discussions) or woven into the responses themselves, whcih would be bad bad bad.

That's just using AI as a better search engine. Nobody is feeling compelled to go with its suggestions.

Just tell me if you're seriously worried that using AI constitutes enslavement.

Oh wow, sign me up for your newsletter on the emancipation of washing machines.

The opposing force is they are looking down the barrel of a demographic implosion that has already begun. Their labor force started shrinking in 2015.

Not really. If you ask it what's going on in the news then you'll get an up-to-date response, because it knows in that instance to check and summarize the news rather than just generating something from its LLM.

And if you ask Gemini what time it is you'll get the right answer, for the same reason.

The fact that ChatGPT fails to do this is a problem with ChatGPT, not any inherent problem for AI. Probably in response to this embarrassing article it will be fixed within a couple weeks.

Show me how your insights have enabled you to create more advanced functionality, and then I'll be interested.

Much of the critique seems irrelevant to AI other than LLMs, such as self-driving cars which map visual input to actions.

My wife and I bought a used 2024 Mini Cooper EV just last weekend, for roughly that amount. It seems well-built and is very fun to drive. However it is only useful for driving around town because its range is only 120 miles. Technologically this is clearly out of date. I couldn't help but think that if not for trade restrictions we could be paying the same for a new car with more advanced batteries and motors. In fact the Mini Cooper EV, the 2025 model with almost double the range, is not available in the US because of trade restrictions.

I never liked the framing of 'their brain hasn't finished maturing.' You could as well say that after 26 the brain begins its decline into risk aversion and senescence. Somebody has to go out and slay the beasts and fight the enemies and make the babies and young people in their physical prime did most of it.

The last thing NVidia wants to do is advance TPUs as a viable and more affordable alternative to the GPUs that are a gusher of profit for NVidia. Even if it's inevitable, delaying the erosion of the GPU market is worth billions per month to them.

This is some big-league gambling! $200B in a morning! That's the entire market cap of Apple in spring of 2010. (For reference that's when the iPhone 4 came out - they were at the top of their game.)