Might the logic behind this be this?: RAM is expensive. Storage is expensive. Nobody's going to buy a computer anyway, so you might as well make the other components more expensive too.

It even goes with Trump's more general agenda to make everything more expensive.

Mrs cra'Bapple is quite the stickler for graphene embiggement.

Watermark is the name of my next dog.

Let's call it Clod

Meanwhile people are knee deep off the coast of Zanzibar

Aunty M, Aunty M, it's a fuckin' twister!

I thought "vibe" was replaced by "aura".

Let's call her chuck roast.

Indeed!

Eloi, Minions (small number of required techs), and morlocks (Katie bar thuh door!).

How many years has Zuck trained his people to respond to him in a positive fashion and not to counterdict any of his ideas?

Of course the AI flattering systems would seem like a perfect replacement for his labor co– I mean, workers; it tells him what he wants to hear.

The AI tools respond the way TechBrahs have designed it to, flattering their egos and building up their self images so yeah, seems like it's ready for prime time.

Gates proposed taxing AI or robots the way you would pay a human employee's payroll tax

Unless we also roll out ubiquitous surveillance through a Vingean "Secure Hardware Environment"-like scenario where people aren't fully in charge of their own computers, I don't see how anyone could possibly detect whether or not I'm running any LLMs. Much like private DMCA violations (e.g. playing a CSS-protected DVD that you purchased, without getting authorization from the copyright owner first), it wouldn't have to interact with the world outside my house in any way, so it would be completely undetectable.

How would you tax that? I don't see this as reasonably possible without some pretty extreme measures.

Demand for huge data processing centers of surveillance information is not going away.

And once built, the fabs have to pay for themselves.

We're never seeing DRAM prices go down.