It is quite clear to everybody it is a bubble and a lot of the AI stuff is sand-castle based or vapor based... At least those of us understanding what the current crop of AI does, and see the amounts of money being exchanged.

The issue is not seeing the bubble, the issue is that most of us (having zero investment and not much savings) have zero idea how to avoid the big crash. I see no way to avoid the crash. Best we can hope is cross finder whether we will lose our job or not.

...we should be finished with the IPv6 switchover by the end of the 1990s.

Shut down all AI-focused data centers, close down all AI companies, confiscate the wealth of the tech bro millionaires and distribute it amongst their employees who are no longer employeed, and bask in a new golden age as we no longer have to hear about AI or have it choke our life with crap, and as suddenly we have a huge energy surplus and a grid that can handle everything that we need on it.

Well, OK, I guess for a true golden age we need to have not a petty narcissist as president and an entire political party that has given up on its principles and that now just exists out of fear and/or delusion to prop up the ego of its chief bully. But, getting rid of all of this A "I" would be a very solid start.

Anything that starts with "OpenAI says"... should be immediately redirected to /dev/null

The evolution of Google, already long ago, was s/don't//.

Great folk stand on the shoulders of others, not on the metaphorical crutches of others.

FWIW, they did say the push notification promoting a Nazi was an error that got debugged. https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

Isn't this the worst possible outcome?

It probably won't substantially hinder Google. However, will the Firefox deal with Google that's been propping up Firefox all this time still be able to work? Or will Firefox be SOL?

I'm afraid of an ironic result of this being that Chrome becomes that just much more of a monopolistic monoculture as a result of the ruling.

"Why? Why should sports be segregated by gender at all? Where's the science for that?"

No by gender, Yes by sex. We say women sport men sport because colloquially everybody until recently (a few decades ago) use women/men for male/female - but the reality is we split sport by sex which we use the colloquial gender name for, but make no mistake the separation is for sex (you can get into a lot of issues of somebody appearing one sex but having hormone insensitivity that does not change the reason for separation which is sexual dimorphism in human). There is a biological reality which is undeniable. Men have roughly 75% more to double the the upper body strength than women and about 25% more lower body strength than women. There are plenty of science article e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a... is an example of those. You can google "difference between men and women strength" and imit yourself to nih.gov and get plenty of hit. Some study are even from other countries e.g. google (out of memory) "proxy grip strength by age and sex" which is a study on grip stgrength as proxy of difference between male , female and age - where you can see non-sport women have about half the strength of non-sport men.

So unless your sport involve ZERO upper and lower body strength, it makes sense to separate sports by sex - note that I don't say gender again. In fact you can find more article on how men resist pain more than women. Another reason to separate sport. If you don't then you eliminate any chance any women to ever be in the top for sport.

And that advantage does not disappear fully with hormone therapy. Skeletal structure & muscle mass is influenced heavily by puberty, muscle mass does not disappear fully with hormone therapy either.

Don't announce you have the way to bypass it but can't publish. 1) dont tell anyone
2) make a patch executable which change the functrion in your app or allow to compile the app with restored function.
3) go through your code and "change" the coding style.
4) take your comments in code, then translate the comment in russian, then translate russian in chinese, then chinese back in english : this is your new comment
5) tkae your function names and translate in russian
6) go into a coffee with free wifi in a separate city, buy a burner, use vpn, tor it, connect to wifi, push the code to a torrent or somewhere where it will attract attention

Now the code is out in the wild, and people can use your app, and chance is nobody will ever be able to trace it back to you.

Polyp used to be my least favorite word. I would read or hear it, and it would make me feel just gross.

I think monetize, however, is now my least favorite word.

1990s me is very surprised that somebody would have to go out of their way to make sure a word processor ran on their computer without automatically connecting to a network, and without needing a network for full functionality.

Every so often I put myself in the mindset of 1990s me looking at technology today, and what I mostly hear is, "Wow, you have a lot of capability, but WHAT WERE YOU THINKING???"

I'll take oxymorons for $100, Alex.

Many headlines could just be replaced with this.

what kind of behavior would demonstrate that LLMs did have understanding?

An LLM would need to act like an understander -- the essence of the Turing Test. Exactly what that means is a complex question. And it's a necessary but not sufficient condition. But we can easily provide counterexamples where the LLM is clearly not an understander. Like this from the paper:

When prompted with the CoT prefix, the modern LLM Gemini responded: âoeThe United States was established in 1776. 1776 is divisible by 4, but itâ(TM)s not a century year, so itâ(TM)s a leap year. Therefore, the day the US was established was in a normal year.â This response exemplifies a concerning pattern: the model correctly recites the leap year rule and articulates intermediate reasoning steps, yet produces a logically inconsistent conclusion (i.e., asserting 1776 is both a leap year and a normal year).