I think I heard this story last year, or perhaps a few years ago. I've no reason to think it was the same plant, though.

We're also discovering unceasingly dim objects that are closer. They just don't get the same news coverage. But I'm more interested in wandering planets and planetoids (and even Oort belt objects).

What people usually don't get is that LLMs don't reason, they follow scripts.

They have memorised most of the available human interactions available online, so they can behave convincingly in a wide range of situations mimicking proper human behaviour. They may even seem to reason if you put them in a loop and make them reflect on their own answers; this may result in them making proper logical inference, but you may also produce any number of illogical conclusions that happen to be the most likely next step according to the script they are following at that moment (but which may change at any time).

Greedy bastards

Perhaps the answer is that the "Big Bang" wasn't the first, and these black holes are left over from a prior "universe". In that case, though, why are they so close together.

Yeah, my question is "What isn't prior art?". The summary sure doesn't list anything.

OTOH, it does indicate the direction he wants to push things. He wants these integrated into the lives of people whether they, themselves, use them or not.

Agree in spirit, but if one vendor breaching one contract means you're instantly and irreparably out of business overnight... You second-source it or do it in-house!

No court order in the world can un-burn a dollar.

Then we're going to need a lot more funnels to refill all those toothpaste tubes.

If you removed every foreign-made product from a typical Walmart, you'd basically be left with a steel-frame building stripped to the beams.

If you replaced every one of those products with an American version - You'd have Niemann Marcus plus Erewhon, with some products simply not available at any price (short of bespoke).

Except that App Store is now mandatory for any business app.

Agreed. It should be more like $25. $100 is _way_ too much.

Also don't forget having to use Apple hardware to do the development.

"its suggested commission gives it fair compensation for the App Store platform."

Which is a pretty bold claim given this is specifically targeting devs/publishers who don't want to use their walled garden but have no choice if they want an audience of more than a few dozen hardcore geeks.

Never mind "under that approach, the fee would be zero" - Under that approach, the fee should be negative! People are actively trying to work around Apple's lock-in. I can't speak for everyone, but I usually don't go out of my way to avoid beer and BJs.

Surfaces of 3D objects are 2D objects, I think it's in the mathematical definition and all.

Investors are chasing a company that achieves some kind of AI singularity. Let's set aside the fact that there's no reason to believe there is anything but diminishing marginal returns by making marginal refinements to current frontier models. Let's imagine someone hits the jackpot and gets, not even AGI, but a system that's as far ahead of today's frontier model are ahead of 2020's GPT 2.0 in performance.

Globally AI revenues are 150 billion, against a cumulative burn rate of 450 billion. A model that is a generation ahead of others would almost certainly capture the lion's share of that revenue.

If AGI magically appears as a Sam Altman has promised investors it will, a hundred million is way too low. Add, maybe, another zero to the revenues.

Conservatively, a safer assumption is that frontier models will get marginally better based on refinements in training and reinforcement and the other bits and bobs that go into these systems. The nobody is winning the lion's share of anything, at least overnight. But you have to define "safe". By "safe" I mean unlikely to lose money. But some investors are clearly defining "safe" as "having the greatest chance of owning a piece of the biggest thing ever."

I'm not following this super-closely, but if Anthropic is pursuing adding multi-step model based reasoning to their system, that could be the basis of a generational leap in capability. But if that is an approach that looks like it has a chance of working, then their competitors are no doubt pursuing the same thing. In that case you'd expect the revenue pie to grow as the scope of model utilty increases, but that growth to be split among several competitors. This could credibly result in a revenue stream for some of them that is as big as the entire industry's revenue stream today. But there's going to be hell to pay on the data center impacts end of things.

But that *does* require that you believe that they are honest to you about their future actions...and that they won't change their mind later.

Pirates were often hanged by the same countries that issued them letters of marque.