This problem is not from vibe-coding. It is from a lack of design.

Real developers spend more time designing their programs than they spend coding them. For a reason.

(... and forget the EPSTEIN Files)

Shouldn't this datacenter be utilized by xAI (which is part of SpaceX now)? Why would they be leasing the capacity to a competitor instead of using it for their own internal AI corp?

Also is this datacenter built with the NVidia processors that were originally purchased by Tesla (for their AI project: Self Driving), before Musk decided to redirect them to his competing AI company xAI that he started because Tesla wouldn't guarantee him the controlling ownership stake he demanded "or else he would build AI elsewhere" ?

Nothing shady here...

Your experience actually highlights one of the dangers of popularization of transgenderism. If transitioning had been readily available when you were young, you might have made permanent changes to yourself (chemically, surgically) without ever understanding what you were really feeling.

I support people's right to transition if that is what is right for them. But I do not condone such treatments for pre-pubescents or those who have not been through psychological counseling to ensure they know what they are choosing and why -not just as a reaction to puberty/insecurity that we all go thru to one degree or another.

My first thought was : Who's data center is it?

The homeowner? They don't need that kind of capacity.

The builder/contractor/whoever? Giving someone an easement to come onto my property at any time to access and maintain their equipment is not something that I want. It is bad enough that I have to put up with existing utility easements on my property -I am not building/buying a new home with extra easement requirements for a private company to send people over whenever they want to access their datacenter.

This is true. The cases so far have settled. None have gone thru the appeals process to actually generate binding precedent from a high court -they have all been rulings from a trial court judge.

BUT in each case, the judge has ruled as a matter of law that training is inherently transformative and thus not infringing. This is precedent setting, but not binding. Another judge could decide differently -but in doing so would create a matter for appeal.

Where the other cases have diverged is on the other issues. I bring up the Anthropic case because it specifically addressed the issue of acquisition of the data used in the training sets and the impact of that in a trained AI system, which is relevant to this case. The first Meta case (Kadrey vs Meta) also found that training was fair use, but brushed aside the issue of data acquisition; although it delved deeper into the other fair-use qualifiers (amount used, market impact, etc.) eventually finding in favor of Meta.

It could go either way (betting against someone with unlimited funds is not a good bet), but the precedent is against Meta here.

I was thinking Bartz vs. Anthropic, but there are other rulings.

I think someone summarized them further down, but I recommend reading them for yourself.

Training is not the same as pirating.

Training using material legally acquired is legal.

Training using illegally acquired material is illegal.

Not a contradiction.

Precedent holds that training with copyrighted material is transformative in nature, and thus is non-infringing.

Precedent further holds that pirating the material to train with is an incurable violation of copyright: That an AI trained using a dataset that includes pirated material is tainted to a degree that can only be cured by deletion of the AI and the training set data. Purchasing valid copies of the data after the fact are not sufficient; although a new dataset can be constructed from the newly purchased data and a new AI trained with this new dataset. This is in addition to the financial liability of the copyright violations.

Zuck is fucked.

Google doesn't actually have to cease UK operations. That is just some internet-tough-guy bad faith fantasy. Don't entertain it as a real thing.

Google doesn't have to agree to the terms put forth by the unions. Google can recognize the unions, negotiate on common terms, and still reject the demand to "pull out of its long-standing contract with the Israeli military". That puts the ball squarely back in the court of the employees. How many are really willing to quit over that one demand not being met? Being a union does give leverage, but it does not give the ability to dictate terms. And that one is a BIG ask for a tech company.

The idea is that the ultra-rich DO dilute their ownership. They would have to sell some of their assets in order to pay what they owe. That is by design. Less for them, more for everyone.

When executives sell their shares it doesn't dilute the stock price much, because they normally schedule their sales in advance. Since it is publicly known that they will sell X shares on DATE it is something that larger traders are already planning for -it is essentially baked in to the price of the stock. The overall effect is minimal.

You are thinking like a poor person. Someone with limited resources. Someone who needs money to live. To a rich person, it is just a cost-of-doing-business. You avoid it if you can, minimize it if you can't, but you pay it and get on with making more money. There is no point in wasting effort seeking revenge. It is only money.

I am pretty sure the kids in school know how to use AI. It is how they do their homework, write their papers, etc. Teaching them AI basics is redundant. Teaching them advanced AI use is pointless -by the time they enter the workforce, the state-of-the-art will have changed several times.

What they need to learn about AI is that it is not a replacement for skill or knowledge. It is a tool. A supplement. They need to be taught when to use it, and when to rely on themselves instead. (like a calculator for mathematics: use the tool, but first understand the problem you are trying to solve -don't just trust it blindly. Answers are not the same as solutions.)

Anthropic IS the odd one out... in that they baked the guardrails into their model vs just in the license agreement.

Funny how that makes them a threat. Kind of like if you sold guns, but the guns magically would not fire at cops, and one particular group of "respectable businessmen" would not buy them because of that. Yeah... what would that imply about those particular customers intentions?

all the fiber in the world wont keep you from developing (for example) scurvy.

This is solving the wrong problem because it is easier.
-Similar to the drunk looking for his car keys under the streetlight when he dropped them over by the car, because the light is better over here.