That's assuming that you even publish the code at all. Looks like they would keep their codebase internal.

GenAI is a bit nicer for offense than defense.

If you are an attacker, the time and consequences of a GenAI mistakes can be more easily ignored. Whoops, an attack that didn't work but you weren't going to succeed anyway. If it screws up the target in a way that you didn't actually want, you may have an opportunity cost because you wanted that data or to ransom the data, but you didn't care *that* much about the data. It's actually a pretty unambiguous 'win' for malicious users since the usual downsides don't matter.

If doing defense, the consequences of GenAI mistakes are more costly. An erroneous security fix actually becomes a hole. A change that loses data is data you actually care about.

All that said, I'm not sure closed sourcing and maintaining an open fork would realistically do anything. I doubt the proprietary fork would be sufficiently different to protect them from hypothetical security issues in their codebase.

And thousands of other comparable pivots went nowhere.

At least with amazon, you could connect the dots, ok, we are investing in an online bookstore, ok, now they are selling more stuff, but it's still selling online stuff... Many years later they start being seen as a compute vendor, but only after they had shown in-house prowess for years prior.

This is just coming out of nowhere with no continuity purporting to mysteriously outmaneuver every existing player despite the big issues in their way being well known and aren't going to be alleviated unless you make your own fabs and chips...

Ok, guess I'll give it a shot:

AI AI AI AI AI AI. Give me funding.

That should do it.

A company that has zero demonstrated technological assets, whose only logistics experience pertains to shoes...

And they vaguely purport to be able to secure compute hardware better than all the existing players out there, despite everyone knowing exactly where the bottlenecks are and who is clogging them up...

What idiots invested in this concept? How many millions can I get if I just randomly declare I'm going to get more and better GPUs than all the well known AI players?

The deluded state seems to be a result of the all-hyped Chat interface designed to agree with you, which causes lines of conversations that should be corrected or ignored to be encouraged. So you have a sycophantic external 'validation' for your questionable thoughts.

For the executives, they have a lot of that, with or without the ChatBot, but more importantly it *must* be true for them to get their payoff.

Pretty much, a camera pointed where you are looking. Versus the 'pendant' concept where it looks where your chest is pointing, which seems a bit more awkward. Handheld has nice ability to point independent of gaze, but it's a hassle to hold especially if you want to do other things with your hands like hands on handlebar.

I would assume so, and displayless makes this pretty much a trivial concern, since they are 'just another sort of frames'

Depends, some may object to airpods because they block your hearing, despite the 'transparency' which is pretty good, but nothing beats directly listening. Speakers near the ear may be more acceptable.

Note I'm not exactly jumping up and down at the concept, and not crazy about the prospect of "stealthy cameras everywhere", but I can understand the value.

Issue is that the "AI insiders" are constantly gaslighting, and offering a different face to different audiences.

You are a software developer? Oh, well, you need to pay us money for the tooling and also pay more money for 'education', because you need a whole new skillset to use LLM, it's hard to use and you can still leverage your expertise but need to give us money to be competitve.

You pay software developers to do stuff? Oh, well you can lay off those losers because any rando can just prompt up a fully working piece of software with zero skill... "real soon now".

That is before the GenAI tendency to Gaslight people day to day on accident (and also be gaslit, sometimes by itself).

Based on my real life experience, it's not the GenAI in and of itself that is the trouble, it's just that all the most obnoxious people are more empowered by it. Busybodies that love to tell people how to do their jobs without actually knowing how that job is done can be more specific and verbose as they still don't know what is going on. Clickbait types that made slop before now make more slop than ever. Of course there's the "AI insiders" that want to suck up all investment and all the attendant ego problems related (especially Musk, Altman, and Zuckerberg are just even more insufferable than usual).

Problem is a lot of local communities do not understand these facilities.

Was a news story around here where a datacenter project was deeply regretted by the local politicians. They saw "business will build facitlity with huge amount of square feet" and their closest comparison was a textile plant of about that size and how many jobs they used to provide. So they excitedly bent over backwards to accommodate the datacenter project and then ultimately had an enduring employment of about 6 jobs.

Tax revenue? Their business has little to do with the local community, so no sales tax revenue. Very few jobs, so very little income tax. Local communities *can* get property tax, but part of the sweetheart deals is usually huge property tax breaks, because the communities think they are making jobs and want the jobs instead of property tax.

The general problem in this scenario is that free market works best when participants have roughly equivalent resources and information to protect their interests. These datacenter projects are supremely asymmetric between the local communities and the companies building the datacenters.

Some of the concerns are fundamental.

They tend to prefer getting rid of farmland or forests. Maybe if they tended to target abandoned retail spaces like dead malls and shopping centers, maybe they wouldn't be so bad.

Especially since the current frenzy is a bunch of competitors of whom only some will likely survive a correction in the market. Hell, even without investment failures, a large number of these projects are plagued by logistics issues stemming from people eagerly making commitments they could have never realistically met. So we will end up with some 'datacenter blight' just like overdoing retail has left us with blight.

Note they only temporarily ban it, which would buy them time to work out details precisely like what you say.

Such restrictions to manage the impact can take time to work out, moreso if all the business interests involved benefit by stalling establishing and enforcing such nuanced measures. If the status quo is build without worry and consequence, it's very hard to subtly move things toward still building, but with more responsibility and accountability.

If there is a moratorium, then the business interests have skin in the game for getting those sort of measures sorted out, especially if failure to do so may extend the moratorium or perhaps the chance to conclude the moratorium sooner if things can go smoother.

If they believe this, then they have no understanding whatsoever what 'connected' means in a vaguely human context.

Of course, if you asked me if there was a single human on earth that current GenAI could imitate flawlessly, it would be Zuckerberg.

They don't ban datacenters, they just ban *new* datacenters, for now.

I haven't read as to what counts as new datacenter construction. If they can expand existing, or renovate existing. If it's anything like retail around here, datacenter operators being pressured to reuse existing infrastructure wouldn't be terrible. We have a blight of dead retail space even as they keep clearing forest to make new retail space. I would *love* if retail industry was forced to revitalize the abandoned retail footprint instead of leaving it derelict.

Problem with new datacenters right now is that the industry is flooded with people who aren't planning well and causing a lot of projects to fail partway through. There's too much impatience and the people that can plan and execute it correctly are sidelined while less experienced companies make promises that they can't keep but the promises sound better.

I think a fair argument can be made that the buildout is not because people are using, but instead based on an expectation that people *will* be using them.

If it were the case that we overrun the capacity then one would expect companies to be a bit more restrained. Instead almost every google search gets an "AI Overview", inflating the query cost a hundred fold without the user ever actually opting in. So many companies are embedding AI implicitly into existing flows without user demand being actively expressed. This is not the behavior of a market starved of resources that would be saving the capacity for those that specifically opt into it and further the ones that would pay for it.

The scenario that we are under sized for the current demand would imply that no one should be able to see 'free' usage of AI in their experience and would be expected to pay up.

It's not just about the energy, we have water and land usage concerns as well. A few cases around here of farmland potentially going to datacenter buildout, and I'm not sure that's a good long term trade.

It's abundantly clear this is a tech bubble, with some undefined durable demand, but the current speculative buildout may never get fully utilized. By the time the non-bubble demand catches up, there's good chances that we have a whole other approach that dramatically changes what sorts of resources are needed. For example people sometimes defend the dot-com buildout as rational because, eventually, we surpassed even the dreams of back then, but we had to scrap a lot of that buildout as hopelessly irrelevant to the market that was all-in on internet.

Broadly speaking, a lot of AI advocates believe AI can do every single job *except* their own.

In terms of hating programming, yes, actually a lot of the staunchest supporters hate programming. Because they can't do software development themselves but have somehow latched onto the business of software development. Business folks that carry a great deal of resentment that there are employees that have sufficient leverage over them to extract significant salaries and there's not a lot the business side can do to counter.

Code gen represents the possibility that they can have a fungible workforce where the labor has no particular leverage.

A lot of these folks are a bit unhinged in thinking that somehow codegen eliminates their need for skilled workers but somehow leaves them in the loop. I saw specifically a software sales org think they could get away with selling the act of inputting the client's requests into prompting without any software development experience/skills.