I think he suggests how they operate and perhaps their resultant product quality, not their relative performance business wise.

There were the accounting violations before, and now we see that a significant chunk of that revenue was allegedly on the back of ultimately illegal activity.

They tend to play fast and loose with various facets of running their business compared to others, and it shows in their quality, which isn't exactly great.

However, they do tend to come in much cheaper, and if you deem 'white box' type systems adequate, they are the only ostensibly American company to be found in that game.

Sure, that's one thing, but the impression I got here and in a few examples in my personal life is people think they can resell the use of an LLM to get money for a service they didn't otherwise know how to do.

Specifically, for example, someone saying they could now sell software to people despite not knowing how to code by just typing the prospective customer requirement into an LLM and sending back the output and making money. It doesn't really work that way, but there are people who seem to simultaneously believe it can and yet also believe there is a business opportunity to sit between the customer and a chat prompt without any additional expertise..

I am shocked at how many people think they can resell the services of an LLM agent as a side hustle. If it works out, then there's zero reason to go to *you* for the same LLM they can just use themselves. If it *doesn't* work, well, you've got problems.

Think it's less about games in the browser, and more about just a marketing gimmick to cater to 'gamer sensibilities'

I think if anything they vaguely pitch about controls to keep the browser from taking precious resources away from games or something..

Note I pointed out how they tend to *exclusively* grab credit as if they are the *only* ones that matter. There is a role for 'leadership', but the leadership role is more often than not lucked into by either being born into money, or having rich friends rather than particular skills.

In terms of "strategic" direction, this is all too frequently bullshit, with wishlist thinking rather than insight. One example, an executive laid out his strategy, and after peeling away the rambling, the core "strategy" was "increase price per unit, increase units sold, and reduce costs". The leg of making this work was left to vaguely "the team has to innovate something that makes the product a must have", no inkling or suggestion as to what such an innovation might be, but now that he offered the direction "innovate", now it can happen, as if people weren't constantly trying to do so anyway.

So when it predictably failed? Well, unfortunately his team was unable to execute on his brilliant strategy. If it had passed? He would have had the courage to toss aside conventional wisdom that you have to balance volume and price and expense and lead the company to amazing success, and the guy who actually came up with whatever mythical thing only did so because that guy ordered him to "innovate".

Decades in the industry has had me working closer with these "leaders" and the closer I get the more reinforced the impression becomes: these people are egotistical glory hogs that got their position thanks to their family or having the right college friends, or being a background character in a popular product or company and milking that for sucker companies that see a brand like Microsoft or Google in a resume and assume that person must be the most awesome person ever.

I have met good leaders, but they tend to also have the chops to do actual work in the field they lead, even if they don't do it anymore. A good leader needs to have developed some innate understanding to have an vaguely accurate gut feeling for how the organization is doing, to know who is actually doing well or not, knowing how to correct a team that has gotten wrapped up on stuff that doesn't matter. Most leaders are essentially gifted their position by other leaders that don't fully understand things and it becomes a lottery for who gets success and sometimes global recognition like Altman, or who just everyone gets to see as a blatant fraud, like Milton.

Given the way the 'OpenClaw' fanaticism has gone? Absolutely. They are very excited about the prospect of letting the LLM generate everything up to and including API calls to post content to forums and such.

Does someone take an answer from GenAI as fact without even a second thought? It does this sort of stuff all the time.

It can be good at cutting through a poorly formed query to give data with the right hints, but then you go and find real material.

What baffles me is why they think to bother continuing it without vr.

Even with vr it was not compelling, the closest it got was the vr aspect. Without vr I cannot see why anyone would bother. It's just the wrong combination of soulessly bland but tediously in a 3d environment.

Has it *really*? From what I've seen they have most of the specific tasks to the point where they can be highly automated for normal operations, up to and including now a mechanism to select an airport and radio announce the emergency landing and land the plane autonomously.

The humans are needed for exceptional cases, and that isn't about to change even if theoretically the plane is theoretically capable of autonomous flight.

Regardless of the merit of ChatGPT. My impression is that Altman isn't a contributor to it, but gets all credit by his position above it.

The difference between Altman and someone like Milton is that Altman lucked out to have the technical team that essentially "won the lottery".

It's a fairly common pattern, someone purports to be a "thought leader" with pretty obvious goals with no inkling how to get there, and if their pet technical people pull it off, the comparatively useless guy gets all the credit and the actual people pulling it off remain comparatively anonymous.

Without lucking into others' technical success, they are more likely to be known as a high profile grifter if they are known at all.

The amount of money in play may dramatically reduce, making it less appealing to people only in it for the money.

If there's anything that can lose out to AI slop, it's commercial software slop. An ecosystem of vendors actively looking to screw over their customers with no talent hacks at super high prices, which will AI slop themselves up to get the worst of all worlds.

Few business will want to pay for "better" because the suits believe as hard in AI slop as they have believed that saying the word 'Agile' magically fixes all that ails their processes. So software development might become a respectable, but modest way to earn a living and scare away the high rollers.

The size of the ISS includes both the radiators and the solar panels, so absolutely that is the scale of an ISS unless you ignore the solar altogether, which you seemed to pivot toward "footprint doesn't matter".

Even if you quadrupled the scale to compensate for 50% loss of solar and idling datacenters if you didn't want an energy storage solution, I would suspect it would still be more cost effective in aggregate. Without making tons of space junk and every thing necessarily be single use components to burn up on re-entry.. if we are lucky.

Whatever the future of this, space is a dumb place for it. The starlink constellations are annoying enough and this would just be amazingly worse and a waste of our resources.

Also remember, this won't be just a handful of potential deorbiting disposable nightmares, it will be tens or hundreds of thousands if they actually executed the way they want.

The fact remains, something the size of the ISS would be needed to support ~100kw of space-hosted stuff. The radiators are only "tiny" by comparison to the big solar panels, but they are plenty big, and we can't ignore the solar footprint that would be needed.

We should not have tens of thousands of ISS magnitude things in LEO to feed the 'wouldn't space be neat?' hubris of a handful of self-congratulatory "thought leaders".

Though think of the opportunity for nVidia, if they get everyone sold on the 'your GPU will burn up on re-entry in 5 years', then they never have to worry about a client delaying a refresh...