"there is no implied obligation to keep making it faster or more powerful"
That's why they don't allege slowing or lack of improvement as a cause of action, they allege collusion. Slowing or lack of improvement might be a overt act used to prove collusion, but is neither sufficient nor necessary to that proof.
And collusion is all so not illegal, as standards committees prove.
Go read what they actually wrote about their products and competition.
I have, and nothing in there or their T&Cs asserts they will always develop at some specific pace; their statements are very subjective and is the usual marketing puffery which is not some guarantee of anything and not grounds for a lawsuit. They talked about rapid scaling and increasing capabilities, but made no promises as to what that means in terms of how fast or what those capabilities will be, merely that it would get better and more powerful; and it still will, at a different pace. They talked about development speed as a competitive edge, but the market has shifted and they are responding. It is not reasonable to expect a company to develop products at some pace decided by outside persons based on some early product hype; and customers where getting specific product for their subscription and could always cancel if they don't like it. No one suffered a loss, and thus the lawsuit is bullshit.
If they would reprocess it, much of that 3.6 million pounds would become either valuable nuclear fuel or totally inert scrap.
The rest would only last 200-500 years before becoming totally inert.
Except for all of their public statements about ongoing development which completely destroy that argument, sure.
Slowing down development is still ongoing development, just a different pace.
These companies keep making public statements about how they are making it better and more powerful to benefit their customers, so yes it certainly does. Every public statement they make is relevant. That's how everything works, not just corporations.
However "better and more powerful" doesn't imply a pace of development. Slowing it done is not incompatible with "better and mire powerful."
1st Amendment grounds? What the fuck are you smoking? DeepSeek is a Chinese company. It doesn't get ANY of the protections of the US Constitution, you clown. It's a foreign entity.
DeepSeek offers services in the US and thus would come under the protection of teh 1st Amendment, teh same as any foreign company offering services in the US, the Constitution doesn't discriminate between US and non-US entities in teh US as far as their rights are concerned. A more tenuous argument, IMHO, would be such a ban violates he ight to freedom of association of those in the US.
Or that it's not getting better fast enough might be a better analogy. It's such a strange thing to feel entitled to, I can't think of anything that's getting better.
Welcome to an age where everyone is entitled...
Well, was it? Is that your claim, or not? Were they subscribing now for a future discount, or was the subscription for current use? Seems pretty straightforwards. Note that it doesn't matter what they anticipate unless it was promised.
Sometimes a company does make future promises to get people to subscribe now based on FOMO. Is that the case in these services? I don't use them, but my understanding is that people are merely subscribing to what is currently offered.
I do subscribe to one and use it for work. They basically promise access with usage limits at various tiers, and offer more powerful models on a pay as go basis for the basic tier. No where do I recall being promised ongoing development of ever more powerful models. You do expect that given how computer development occurs, but it is not unreasonable to think they may at some point decide what they offer is powerful enough and not introduce more powerful ones.
Yes and this is likely also an attempt at regulatory capture, to get lawmakers to set the bar high enough that new players would find it very difficult to gain traction. I won't be surprised if DeepSeek gets banned entirely from the USA and ordered to be blocked by ISPs
Possibly but regulatory capture is not illegal or an anti-trust violation and a common practice for many industries. Even if the US decided to block DeepSeek and it didn't get thrown out on First Amendment grounds, VPNs make banning a whack a mole game.
Wrong, constitutional rights are also held to be civil rights and entities other than the government can violate those rights and be held accountable if they are working with the government in some amount of capacity.
I'm surprised the species hasn't been renamed yet
Donald Ducks?
Flying low over the central flyway during migration season might not be a good idea.
Geese are non-compressible fluids as far as jet turbines are concerned.
Probably a Canadian Geese trying to sneak into America.
Have yourself a look at Tehran's water situation. When even your seat of state has no reliable source of water, you're fucked.
"Data center satellites will not be happening, same as Mars colonies."
You're too late, one is in orbit and I'm making an even bigger one right now.
Go figure, someone with heavy thermal regulation experience in semiconductor technology is what's needed to properly cool high-tech in space and make what everyone says is impossible into reality.
And I do it with only a GED.
Sit down.
Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten
