I find the fact that it can play some games interesting and there's probably something to follow up there for those smarter than me.

(Though I don't care enough to see how well it plays the games it's "good" at).

I think it's more:

Company falling behind in AI tells everyone "let's slow down".

My understanding is that they're pretty similar in performance and an order of magnitude more expensive than the Chinese models (some of which are open weight), and behind Anthropic and even Alphabet now for work.

Only the government can bring criminal charges.

These companies can file complaints and hope the government tries criminal charges and the companies can file a civil suit.

We definitely need a way to attach criminal charges to entities that can't go to jail. I'd propose socializing the company for the length of the prison sentence before then returning it to shareholders.

It can be pretty hard to get a job that uses your potential and drugs that stabilize mood in the US. I don't think Brqve New World applies at all.

I love a term a friend of mine used to use when talking about AI: "Narrowly superhuman" (before "superintelligence" got to be a thing).

AI is narrowly superhuman. It is able to do specific things that used to be defined as a "hallmark of intelligence" much better than a human. The easiest one? Summing numbers. It's both faster and more precise than a human.

AI gets more and more such areas it can do better than a human.

If we define "Superintelligent" to be "A computer system able to do absolutely everything we can somehow call intelligence better than any human", we will *never* have superintelligence. The things we define as intelligence will be in conflict; we'll land at the system being better at one at the cost of another.

I'm in favor with being careful about this development. But "prohibiting the development of superintelligence" isn't an option. It's already here.

Dividing the yearly US spend on Internet advertising by the number of people in the US that has Internet access gives $900-$970 spend per person per year, or $75-$81 per month.

Please choose the option you want:

1. I want to pay about $75 per month per member in my family into the ad auctions to not see any ads. Ie, keep the infrastructure, but let you opt to pay your share through money rather than attention.
2. I want to prohibit ads, and accept that everybody will have to pay for the sites they want access to, that there will be much fewer services, that there will be much higher transaction costs, and that the poor will have much less ability to access services. (Microtransactions won't solve this, due to the need for trust evaluation of same.)
3. I want some combination of 1 and 2, where some sides of ads are prohibited so it is possible to buy my way out of them at a lower price,. I accept that this will result in the loss of some services and lower access to others for the poor.
4. I want legislation that makes Internet ad blockers work more consistently. I accept that this just shifts the attention cost to other people, and have me getting the benefit without paying the cost.
5. I want to remove Internet ads and subsidize the sites through taxes.
6. I want to increase the requirements of Trust and Safety checks and format restrictions for ads, potentially accepting higher overhead (in what goes to content vs infrastructure) for less annoying/bad ads. I accept that doing this creates significant advantages of scale for ad networks.
7. Other, please describe, including where costs gets shifted with your proposal.

The above are my best attempt at listing possible options and their correct caveats. In most situations, I find ads annoying (who doesn't). Unfortunately, they are the main money highway of Internet content.

DISCLOSURE: I used to work for Google, where I rang infrastructure for stopping bad ads/advertisers and for removing fake clicks. I've also been interested at the use of sub-cent microtransactions to pay for content since the 1990s, though I've become disillusioned as I've learned more about the attention economics involved. Approving individual microtransactions has a higher attention cost than dealing with the ads, and bulking them per-site (through micro-subscriptions) will limit the number of sites that can have content.

El Nino is more accurately Christ Child.

It's a reference to it being warmer water in the Christmas season.

Wasn't it so with power too?

We managed that as a society.

This is about "tech professional connections" being available. Not being the lowest speed sold.

This isn't a conservative vs non conservative thing. That would be cutting the funding.

This is "let's give government money to bad solutions instead of good ones". That's neither conservative or not. It is currupt and/or inefficient.

I had rock solid dialup connections in the 197xx area.

They're already competitors and Netflix has more streaming time than YouTube.

Netflix has a larger share of online streaming hours than YouTube.

Neither is a monopoly in the streaming and I don't think this would count as google leveraging search (where they definitely are a monopoly).

Aside from carrier level NAT 5g internet thwomped Xfinity for quality in my neighborhood (this may have changed now that there's competition).

My choices (at the low end)were:
  200/6 cable $75
75/50 5g $50

These were observed speed. The 5g was sold as 150/50 and cable 300/6. To get acceptable upload speeds to do remote work with cable was $185/month (I forget if that was 25 or 50).

Verizon ran fiber and now I'm paying $50 for 300/300 and getting pretty close.

Xfinity is now offering reasonable plans for $50 also, not sure if that's because of fiber or 5g. It could be either.

That's why I'll never get a modern car that checks my attention.

Makes it hard to change my CDs on the fly.