They seem to have bought into the SMR hype, despite nobody having even demonstrated a viable prototype commercial design yet.

They need to be able to see outside, and glass is the most reliable way to facilitate that.

I'm not sure it has much effect on the value of the company... At least not in a very predictable way.
The buyback directly reduces the market cap of the company, but also directly increases the EPS.
I imagine it comes out to about a wash. However, what it does do is create a great opportunity to greatly enrich the people who are in charge of the buyback when the share price increases, at the expense of the corporation's viability, which feels like a breach in fiduciary responsibility to all the other shareholders.

But then again, maybe a majority of shareholders would agree on it, since their share prices are going to increase, because let's be real. Few people are investing for the purpose of having ownership of a corporation. They want those gains. They'll never be The Greater Fool.

Fixed.

Also more tolerant of you treating them like a moron, and more tolerant of you being a moron.
But ya, in terms of actual support for you problem? I'd say they're about even.

Spot on for Trump, but I'd call JD Vance anything but vacuous. He has a mind, and it's fucking malicious.

Oh ya?

I jest.
Of course the real problem is that you didn't understand the tool you were playing with.
You weren't using GPT-5, you were using GPT-5 mini.
I can replicate the behavior on GPT-5 mini without problem. On GPT-5, I tried 5 times, and not once did it invent a word.

Selecting a specifically dumbed down distilled model as evidence of an overarching concept is problematic for several reasons. Would you like me to explain them to you?

What's the difference between weather, and a simulation of the weather?
Simple- the weather can get you wet. The simulation can't.
But what if I place you in a box, and let the simulation pour water on you, or blow air in your face? Is it real then?

Words- are they real, or are they artificial? Either way- an LLM produces them- they are not simulated. They are real.
If you and an LLM produce the same words, are you real, and it fake?
Are its words fake, but yours real?

You're quick to try to claim that people who reject your magical-brain hypothesis can't tell the difference, but the fact is- you can't even define the difference in any way that passes scientific muster. When you know, you know, amirite?

The problem here is that you're trying to cram all that it is to be human into one word that it simply does not fit into.
My 21 year old niece is intelligent enough to understand this- why aren't you? Are you fake, and she real?

Why do you think every word that applies to a human is "human sounding"?

Do dogs have attention?
Do they become confused?
These are not "human sounding" words- they are words describing the behavior of something that considers.

You keep trying to redefine words to be anthropocentric.

Not remotely. Neither is the word attention limited to them, or the word intelligence.

The cascade of firing neurons that occurs when your attention shifts can be called attention, so I think we're just fine here.

I'm deliberately correctly using terms and refusing to let you claim them as exclusive.
Your illiteracy is evident.

And you think your brain is doing differently?

Indeed. And yet is critical for forming the difference between a simple Markovian model, and a model where the state space is the vocabulary * context, that is to say- as big as yours.

Your neurons are a bunch of signals reaching an action potential and firing. Lossy triggering is literally part of the functional behavior.

Pet peeve- call them insults.
An "ad hominem attack" is just a pretentious way of saying "insult", attempting to piggy back off of the tu quqoe fallacy, of which it has no relation.
The argument being made here is pretty funny though.
If something can evaluate multiple facets of a thing, it's human intelligence?
Well that's no problem- your favorite LLM evaluates ~1000 different facets of every token it considers.
Are 1000 different judgements human?
What about 1000^100000, as it does for an entire context window?

Oh this is neat. Where can I find this definition of intelligence?

Your neat sloppy mess of neurons that does parlor tricks is impressive, but it does not think, and it is not intelligent.

Do you think I excluded myself from that assessment, dipshit?
So desperate to think your brain is magical, aren't you?

If we define thinking to be a "human endeavor", sure, then LLMs do not think.

The problem, of course, is there are non-anthropocentric definitions, and it m aeets them just fine.
Intelligence does not include sound judgement- it includes judgement, period.
If it only included sound judgement, you'd be declaring that a large body of humans lack intelligence, to which I say- you're one of them.

It was implicit in the demonstration that the argument being given holds for humans as well, who are obviously "intelligent".
Why did I need to state the obvious? Because of you and that dipshit who say shit like:

You have claimed an implementation-specific requirement for intelligence, while calling my mockery of such thinking "stating the obvious."

More blathering dumbshittery. I proved nothing. You, however, have demonstrated that you can't even think through the logical conclusions of the word vomit that emits from you. Perhaps you're an LLM.

Ya, says the person with the fucked karma, lol.

There is no language parser in an LLM- you're just.... well, fucking wrong.
So fucking wrong, it almost feels wrong to call you fucking stupid- because you had to put thought into coming up with that completely wrong fucking thing.

You're just sad all around.

No, they're not.
The fact is, we do not know "how" they work except at the very base level.
We use recursive descent to move weights in a very large collection of MLPs with a self-attention mechanism, and they're able to produce text.
Beyond that, we have to evaluate their behavior empirically.

This is correct, but misleadingly limited.
Based on your training, you compose words that would be expected in response to a prompt.

Models generalize. It's what's in the middle of the prompt and the answer that matters. You're trying to assert that it doesn't "think", while being wholly unable to define "think" in a way that isn't anthropocentric.

To your big-I anthrointelligence that you have defined to mean your subjective human experience, and defined their internal experience to be not that- sure, yes, I agree with that statement.
It's entirely fucking useless statement- but a statement it remains.

This is the simulation vs. reality argument- and it's flat out logically wrong.
Intelligence is not a physical thing that can be simulated. It is a classification of action. LLMs can, in fact, act.

Except this is a philosophical argument, not a physical one.
Next you'll tell me Achilles can't possibly beat the Tortoise.

understand (v):
interpret or view (something) in a particular way.

I know very well how an LLM works, which is why I can tell you that they don't provide answers to prompts.
The prompt is part of the same multi-billion term calculation that their knowledge is. That's what self-attention is.

I think you've just demonstrated that an LLM understands more than you do.