I have such fond memories of EA from the '80s, but as far as I'm concerned, that's a completely different and unrelated entity.

Hawaiian eruption last a long time and the lava flows persist for years.

Your effusive eruptions last on average no longer than our effusive eruptions. The fact that Iceland also has phreatic eruptions doesn't change the fact that most of ours are effusive basalt, just like yours, with corresponding eruptive dynamics. Also, FYI, for a given total effusion volume, slow eruptions are easier to divert. Diversion is much more challenging when an equivalent volume of lava is effused in a short period of time. And it's not like you have vastly larger average lava flows than we do. The largest lava flow on Earth in the Holocene (modern era) is in Iceland (the THjórsárhraun - 900km2, 25km3, 70km underground travel followed by 130-140km on the surface). For comparison, Hawaii's largest holocene flow is the Ailaau Flow at 430km2, 4-5km3, and 40km.

If we want to limit to more recent flows (since Ailaau was fairly recent, in case you think Iceland stopped having big eruptions), Iceland's biggest *after* Alia'au was Laki (1783–1784 AD), at 600km2, 15km3, and 80km. It lasted for 8 months to 2 years, depending on whether you count the concurrent Grímsvötn eruption as part of it. So much gas was released from that huge volume of lava that despite us being nearly arctic (polar volcanoes have much lower near-term climate impacts than equatorial volcanoes), it caused a winter so severe that the Mississippi froze at New Orleans and ice was seen floating in the Gulf of Mexico.

We simply get bigger effusive eruptions than you, full stop. Not all eruptions, of course, both of us have a huge variance in eruption scales and dynamics. But trying to claim ours are somehow "easier" is just not in line with the facts. Also, Hawaiian eruptions tend to occur on terrain that slopes significantly more consistently toward the sea, aka where you want to divert lava toward; on flatter or less-consistently-angled terrain, lava "piles up" more and makes it easier to overtop berms.

There is a practical side that it is easier to move people and build coffee shacks

I'm not talking about "coffee shacks", I'm talking about whole communities and beloved places. In particular, I'm thinking about the 2018 Lower Puna eruption. Of course the homes near the vents in Leilani Estates were doomed, but there is absolutely NO reason why you should have lost anywhere close to as much as you did so far from the vents. Losing Kapoho Bay for example was simply cultural fatalism. I watched a person crying on the news saying she didn't understand why Pele chose to take such a beautiful place. It's not Pele who took it, it's your insane resistance against doing anything to protect yourselves. That was one of the easiest possible flows to divert. Most of the lava fronts moved at a crawl, you had warning long in advance of the eruption and a very slow eruptive rampup (didn't really take off until June), and you had a steep slope to the south into unpopulated areas you could have easily diverted it down. Losing all that was a choice.

"Oh, we can't!" is just an excuse for your fatalism that gives you an excuse to not put forth the effort to actually do it. It's not the 1940s anymore, we're not chucking surplus WWII bombs at lava tubes anymore. Lava diversion is a science and is routinely effectively done. There are limits, but you were nowhere near said limits for sites far from the vents. There are costs, but they are nowhere near the costs that you paid by refusing to act.

Well as you said FRAND is one reason private companies would fund research and then donate it to a standards body, and a “good” one.

Not the only reason though. A lot of things are driven by adopting standards. If you make your very own technology and other companies need to adopt it they tend to want to deal with standards not a single source product, so you get wider adoption by publishing “your thing” as a standard. It does basically burn most or all of the money you invested R&D, but in exchange you get to enlarge the market. You also get to be the first company that can supply a product that uses the standard. So investing money into a new radio strategy and having that be part of the next WiFi standard you are trading that R&D money for being one of the first companies with the “new” WiFi in your basement station (or sort phone, or whatever).

You also get to shape the future direction of a market. So for example (sticking to radio technologies again) if you contribute a low bandwidth low power long range mode for WiFi you can make WiFi more applicable for things like location tags.

SANDisk I think makes FLASH but not RAM, so from their point of view high bandwidth FLASH displacing some HBRAM demand is a huge win for them, any hardware that decides to use this and less HBRAM makes the market SANDisk participates in larger. SKHynix doesn’t get that same boost because I’m pretty sure they also make RAM. SKHynix however gets a boost because unlike say the other 15 companies that will eventually make high bandwidth FLASH SKHynix (and SANDisk) will be making it from day zero.

I take native Hawaiian religious objections seriously. These are people who take a fatalistic "Pele will take what she wants, it's pointless to try to stop her" attitude toward lava flows running over their houses that seems utterly insane here in Iceland. We'll buy up every available water pump on the international market and walk on active-flowing lava fields to save a harbour for a couple thousand people. We'll keep running tourist sites right next to a volcano that erupts every couple months by building multi-story-high berms around it with giant bulldozers and cooling anything that tries to overtop to make the berms even higher. And it totally works . But Hawaiians will sit back and watch incredibly slow-flowing flows with easy diversion paths take out everything they hold dear. At best they'll point to some primitive failed attempts in like the 1940s as a reason to not try, but then when pressed, it often comes back to: "Pele will take what she wants to take."

Another example: geothermal drilling on the Big Island. Massive protests. Massive resistance, way beyond the token NIMBY resistance here. Meanwhile Hawaii continues to generate most of its electricity from oil, at great cost. Hawaii is the only other place (outside of Iceland) to have accidentally drilled into a magma chamber. In Hawaii they treated it as a major incident and immediately shut down the well. When we did it? Our reaction was, "WOW, we can produce REALLY hot steam from THIS well!", made it into a production well, and started planning to drill more.

I guess one major difference here is that in the early Icelandic cosmology, volcanoes weren't the product of a high-ranking creator goddess, but rather, Surtr, who was practically a demon and was fated to destroy the world. It's good to resist Surtr!

Except his complaint is not.

Yes, it literally was. The main public complaint of the weavers was that they spent their entire life learning their art, and then their bosses come in with a machine that they teach to replicate the patterns that they developed, churn out cheap "slop" versions of them, and fire them.

And here we're talking about profits, despite their huge scaleup expenditure. Theirs and OpenAI's margins on serving inference are ~40%.

It's almost impossible for a company undergoing a massive scaleup rate to turn a profit, let alone growing 10X annualized for 3 1/2 years running, but Anthropic pulled it off.

Woke is what happens when you go to see a movie and instead of being told a compelling story woke ideology is proselytized

Recursion (n): See "recursion"

It's hilarious how obsessed you people are over a term that you can't even define and that none of you agree on. As far as I can tell, the only thing "woke" means today is "I'm A Right Winger, And This Is Something That I Personally Hate". I've seen people describe concepts as unrelated as "the concept of a metaverse" and "removing copyrighted materials to avoid lawsuits" as "woke".

An example of woke AI slop is Everything Everywhere All at Once

Um. What?

That movie was filmed from January to March 2020. You think AI video was a "thing" then? The movie premiered in March 2022. The infamously awful "Will Smith Eating Spaghetti" AI video was what AI video looked like in 2023. AI video was not "a thing" back when that movie was being made. What you actually hate is that movie's CGI.

Secondly, since when is "Jackass"-style "bro" stuff** famously leftist? Sexual gags are stereotypically "bro culture" and stereotypically disliked by feminists in particular and leftists in general. Don't get me wrong, you'll also find some people on the left who like that stuff, but the right tends to buy into it more (men tend to vote more rightward).

As far as I can tell from this, what you actually hate is (A) CGI, and (B) bro culture. Based on this, what you should actually consider yourself is an AI-supporting leftist.

That entire video sits firmly in uncanny valley.

I've shown it to about a dozen people in person without telling them it was AI first, and not a single person noticed. It's only "uncanny valley" because you've been told in advance that it's AI.

It's like my favourite social media hobby: when I encounter anti-AI people, I post things made by humans, generally masterpiece paintings or award-winning photographs, suggest that it's AI, and then watch them tear down how awful and fake and soulless it is. It's pretty hilarious ;)

So what you actually want is more taxes on the wealthy? If so, just say that. Don't hide behind arguments about copyright or that sort of stuff when that's not your actual motivation.

but while machine looms only put people out of work,

Machine looms, along with all of the other equipment of the industrial revolution, led to a massive boom of prosperity across the population as a whole. Machine looms in specific made clothing far more affordable to the average person.

One can criticize the politics of the early industrial revolution for not doing enough to funnel the wealth down quickly enough or to regulate the robber barons, but it was overall a massive benefit to quality of life of society as a whole.

LLMs are doing that plus going into systems that abuse them in lots of other ways.

And the industrial revolution made it easier to make bombs and bullets. That doesn't mean that we should all go back to medieval Europe where the average person lived on the edge of not affording their next meal and society had to dedicate almost all of its resources to basic production rather than things like education, medicine, science, etc. Or reject even more technology and ultimately end up back as paleolithic hunter-gatherers where 40-50% of people died before age 15.

Firstly, US courts have no jurisdiction in most places, so what.

The EU rulings thusfar have been even less restrictive - for example, the LAION ruling, which actually allowed scraping (within constraints).

And if even the US courts are ruling that training with US materials is legal, do you really expect a foreign court to ban training with US materials? And you actually expect that to do anything?

Wishing it wasn't doesn't change the fact that stuff written online has automatic ownership

First off, this is a myth. It's not "everything" that it is written that has automatic copyright, it is everything that is written that involves more than a de minimis standard of creative effort that gains protection. There is a huge range of things that fundamentally lacks copyrightability. It's not "everything".

Secondly, copyright does not make the owner a God to their works. It grants a limited set of rights. The boundaries of these rights get ejudicated by the courts. The very courts whose rulings we have been discussing above. "because...The Law" is what gets determined by the courts.

But open source AI is no such thing

Seriously, please stop what you are doing right now, go to Huggingface.com, and start browsing. This is a maddeningly ignorant statement.

Fifthly, do I personally care about open source AI? No.

Then you must love the idea of giant corporations and billionares controlling things far more than they even do today, because that is the future you get otherwise.

but I view current state of the art AI as statistical toys

LLMs work by chained logical inference.

That mentality never left Microsoft. They just to have work harder to maintain plausible deniability. Plausible, that is, to the anti-trust courts and politicians, none of whom know anything about technology.

I don't think that's likely. GOG has been around for almost 20 years. If they were to renege on providing offline installers, what could that possibly gain them? That only makes sense if they are planning to reimplement DRM, and that would immediately kill the company.

What exactly do you mean by "woke" and "DEI"? Like, contains black people in more than just the background? Has two major female characters that talk to each other about something other than a male character? Has people who aren't straight cis anglo-saxon protestants?

You massively overestimate the capabilities of state of the art AI tools.

A badly done movie by a talentless hack that got a lot of press hype does not a technology define.

First off, a lot of AI use in movies is not "generating the movie". It's special effects. Replacing backgrounds, adding in effects that look better than CGI at lower cost, "tweening", fixing filming errors, etc.

Secondly, you can do a lot better than that terrible demon movie. For example.

The problem is that first off, by and large, it doesn't. Some cases have but perfectly legitimate alternatives - for example, the courts found that Anthropic copying material they haven't bought is illegal but that it's perfectly legal for them to buy used/surplus books en masse for pennies on the dollar, scan them in, and train on that.

Secondly, even if you take an ultra-restrictive view on copyright and heavily strengthen copyright legislation, you're not getting rid of AI. You're just handing control of it over to e.g. Disney, Google, etc. Do you honestly think that's better? Also, what you're killing is free, open source AI. You think that makes for a better world?