Sure, they had to sell their stock, including the parts needed to make the machines. At that time they were also still at least assembling them.

IIci September 1989, Quadra 700 October 1991, in almost the same case. Two years, one month.

That statement was stupid, even absurd the first times that it was used — by the Reich wing. The entire reason I'm still using it when speaking to them is to rub their noses in how fucking stupid it was.

You're two steps behind me as usual, but at least you're getting there.

Insert Travolta looking around meme here. This is me, looking for fucks.

When in the history of humanity has there not been a big problem coming? Or occurring, for that matter.

If the airlines are acting as a de facto division of the government by providing them with your personal data, then they should be treated as such. That means they should follow simple rules for protecting PII like collecting and retaining the minimum needed.

You mean like when he claimed the iPhone would be all webapps?

Let's face it, Jobs' only superpower was being a super dick to employees. This can only take you so far.

Since he's living rent-free in your head, can we assume you're the one responsible for the rsilvergun-impersonating LLM spam?

The problem in this story is not the wealth, but its form. Cryptocurrency transactions are generally irreversible and not subject to the layers of process and protection that have been built up around large banking transactions. Keep your money in banks and brokerages like a sensible person and you don't have much risk.

I found GP2.5 to be great at academic-style research and writing; it was absolutely awful at writing code. So; I would tell it to plan some thing for me and write it in a way that could be used by another agent (Claude Code) to build the code to do the thing. In this way, it has been great! I haven't yet attempted it with 3.

That said, I found GP3.0's page to be hilarious:

It demonstrates PhD-level reasoning with top scores on Humanityâ(TM)s Last Exam (37.5% without the usage of any tools) and GPQA Diamond (91.9%). It also sets a new standard for frontier models in mathematics, achieving a new state-of-the-art of 23.4% on MathArena Apex.

It then proceeds to show, lower down on the page, an example of what it can do, by showing off 'Our Family Recipes". If there's anything that touts PhD-level reasoning and writing, it's a recipe book.

Most of the people on Slashdot have been screaming that the emperor has no clothes for a while now. Building a machine that spits out semi-plausible dialogue is very different from making an intelligent machine. I just asked Google's AI to summarize information about myself (my own name from my own town) and it rather hilariously indicated that my wife was actually my (IRL) sister. It had apparently retrieved the names from an obituary for our grandparent but didn't actually understand the relationships. We're not seeing the meaningful improvements that you would hope to see given the ludicrous capital that's been invested into LLMs. This isn't like Moore's Law in the 90's where there is constant improvement along a single axis (transistors per square mm). There have been a couple really big breakthroughs (first deep learning, and then transformers). Throwing more and more compute power at it isn't going to create the payoff that all the investors think. It's not going to get significantly better without more big breakthroughs, and those might come tomorrow, or not until long after we're all dead and gone. LLMs are a very risky bet right now.

Uh, yes, the 24-hour cancellation option is always the most expensive one for a given room (ignoring paying extra for add-ons like free breakfast or extra points). What other option would be more expensive? The one that gives the consumer the most flexibility is the one with the highest risk to the property, and that's priced in.

Yeah, TFA overstated it. Though if you're not booking through the chain directly, in many cases it is hard to get a 24-hour cancellation policy. Many of the travel aggregator services hide them.

Yep. That's all true even if AI is the most transformative technology ever invented, even if it generates trillions per year in economic output -- it might not do it soon enough to prevent another crash. You don't have to believe that AI is "sand-castle based or vapor based" (which it's really not) to see a big problem coming.

Not an unreasonable FP, but now you can reply to yourself to clarify what you mean. Perhaps under a more thoughtful and substantive Subject? I'm too happily retired to care about your apparent focus, and I don't see how to make any more jokes under the current conditions so thoroughly dominated by Poe's Law, so I'm switching to a practical topic:

The google is nagging me, even leaning on me, to buy some storage. But "Who steals my data, steals trash." I'm quite sure that my stored data is strongly dominated by worthless garbage. Will the google's AI help me throw away the trash?

I didn't think so.

However, I'm sure there is at least one large category of images that could be reduced to a few hundred bytes per image. This is actually the kind of task AI is good for, but "Don't be evil" has been completely redefined now. It's a Level 3 lie, but "evil" now means "anything that might impede or reduce the google's profits".

So I'll just start throwing away stuff at random. And feeling even more disgusted with the google and even more eager to go ANYWHERE else.

Wait a minute. I finally did think of a joke. Hilarious to remember my positive sentiments about the google of yore. So different from today's sentiments towards one of the truly great corporate cancers.

The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

The better strategy, IMO, is to keep your money safe and wait for the bubble to burst, then pile in for the recovery. Where to keep money safe is a good question, though. Just holding cash might be risky if inflation comes back, and the current administration seems anxious to pump up inflation.

There's a pair of seriously bad assumptions underlying your analysis:

(1) What AI does right now is all it's going to do. Given the way capabilites have grown recently, this is a ludicrous assumption. Keep in mind that ChatGPT was launched November 30, 2022... it's less than three years old! And the reasoning models are barely a year old. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that this technology has peaked.

(2) We already know how to take full advantage of AI. Every time a new technology comes along it takes decades for us to fully understand how to effectively use it, and to deploy it everywhere it is useful. I'd say we still haven't fully incorporated the Internet into our society, and we've been working on that for over 30 years now. We're barely beginning to understand how to use what AI we've already got, and it'll take years, if not decades, for the full economic benefits to be achieved -- and in the meantime AI is probably going to continue improving.

The AI thing absolutely is a bubble, but it's not "sand-castle based or vapor based". It's very real. The problem is that the massive wave of investment is going to have to start generating returns within the next 3-4 years or else the financial deals that underpin it all will collapse. That doesn't mean the technology will disappear, it just means that the current investors will lose their shirts, other people will scoop up their assets at firesale prices, and those people will figure out how to deploy it effectively, and create trillions in economic value.

Well, assuming AI doesn't just kill us all.