They MIGHT even have to HIRE!

So the Billionaire can leave, but he'll end up controlling his company remotely from out of state unless he can do everything with AI or make do with mediocre employees or use AI and have a few less-than-stellar employees for grunt tasks.

And then wait for California to introduce a law that if the CEO works remotely from the company, then workers are allowed to work remotely as well. And by remotely, I mean the CEO lives in a place where no substantial office of the company exists. So if they live in Florida, they will need to set up an office in Florida where the CEO will go to and staffed with a certain number of people who also come in to work daily. Say, 10 to 20 people must work in the same office as the CEO to be not considered working remote. And those 10 to 20 people must regularly come into the office.

And said office must in a properly zoned for business. So no inviting 10 family members for an in-home office.

If nothing else, Florida and Texas now see a boom in CEOs having to open offices and hire people.

I'm not sure where you get the "almost no support cost". The article I read about the Chinese factory said that the robots were just about all being replaces (by newer models) after only a year.

Your statement would apply if these data center space nutters could certify that everything they launch will reach escape velocity.

For everything else, what goes up, must come down. Right back into our jurisdiction.

In this case Trump is more a symptom than a cause. Local policing is more of a state level, or even city level, affair. But, yeah, it's a related event.

And remember, you should expect people to act in ways that make their job easier. It doesn't always happen that way, but that's what you should expect, no matter what the rules say.

That's possible, but you didn't cite your source for the statistic. And I think it quite unlikely, so, for me, you really need decent evidence rather than just a claim.

What do you mean "disproven"? Are you saying that mirrors don't reflect, that it won't be cost effective, or what?

Is to set coursework and exams that are specifically crafted to exploit where AI is weak or prone to hallucinate.

You do not ban cheating, because those who cheat will inevitably find ways to circumvent the ban.

Rather, you exploit the properties of the mechanisms of cheating to ensure that those who actually understand the ideas are marked relatively highly (regardless of whether they reach the textbook conclusion) and whose who do not understand the ideas cannot do well even if they give what is in the textbook.

The interest should not be in precise answers, but in precise use of tools of reasoning and analysis, because this is what actually matters when it comes to understanding. Yes, it means you can't standardise so easily, and you have to devise things in ways that don't penalise intuitive thinkers over methodical thinkers, but you cannot teach a subject properly if you are only concerned about the surface.

So it turns out politicians can pass legislation that helps people.

Mamdani has been doing a lot of it.

Of course, it was too hard for the "other" politicians because they were being paid off. Mamdani ran on a platform that those other politicians were describing as something that would destroy the state.

We can't afford to let the success of big tech companies depend on the health of fragile meatbags. We need to get resilient, fault-tolerant AGI in there running the enterprise. Also, unlike meatbags, you don't need $100M stock payouts to convince an AGI to work as a corporate executive.

They've got a lot more components to their system...and the tooling isn't all software. As for software, IIUC, they're using a different multi-processing library. Making the weights compatible doesn't make the entire system compatible.

I didn't see a 5.6 option on the Windows client last night.

Haa anyone else observed 5.6 in the wild?

Trump doesn't need to have power, he only needs to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Companies are risk-averse, which is why Anthropic pulled their AI model for a while.

IIUC, the Chinese strategy is to come up with a cheaper collection of tools, including models, that are incompatible with the standard US tooling, and convince other countries to use their version instead. The US government seems to be actively pushing to make that strategy work. (E.g. abruptly cutting off access to models with no warning or explanation.)

Most FOSS software starts small, and easy to learn, and if it's going to grow, it grows with a community of developers that understand the software. This? Unless it's pretty small and compact, that's unlikely. And those who are going to develop using it probably need a company behind them. (Plausibly one with a good legal staff.)