It's pretty close to a zero sum game. On one side you have fake valuations that will never match reality, but on the other you have inflation from printing money to somewhat match pace with it. Every action he takes has a balance somewhere else.
So Elon is running the money printers and not the FED? And it's still all his fault?
Proton isn't European, it's Swiss.
Glad we're at least not trying to pretend it's about "keeping it out of Trump's hands", and instead it's about "putting it in hands of our goons who'll be able to snoop through it whenever they feel like it".
It's a crime in the US to "shout fire in a movie theater". Guess Americans live in Soviet times too.
The problem is morons who think free speech is absolute.
No, the problem is morons who think the magical phrase "it's like shouting fire in theatre" magically invalidates 1A in all circumstances (and other free speech laws in other countries).
The technology does not allow it. It can maybe hallucinate a bit less and have the most obvious exploits blocked in the system prompt, but that is it.
Just gotta love the haters
1. Incapable of anything other than "regurgitating slop", being useless, hallucinating, wasting electricity, "only predicting the next token", "incapable of any deeper thought" etc etc
2. An absolute threat to humankind, that will allow hackers to zero-day everything, put everyone out of jobs (sorry, "jerbs"), let the elites finally get rid of plebs and replace us with robots, and ultimately lead to robot revolution and using nukes to wipe out humans
And obviously there's no contradiction
Power users have always been required to adhere to strict standards. Cos-phi for instance.
The willingness of US consumers to swallow externalized costs of industry never ceases to amaze. "Please sir can I have some more!"
OK, let me get this straight. You really think that buffers against this kind of thing, flywheels, batteries and so on, should be built and operated by the AI company, who, when push comes to shove, is financially incentivised to optimise the operation of their own servers rather than care for the grid, and even *IF* they decide to do the right thing all they can do is try to second-guess what's the state of the grid based on what they're seeing at their end of power line, rather than the power company who is incentivised to care for the grid, has full info on what's happening with the grid at any given moment, can integrate this into their own management schemes, and has all the technical expertise to know what's needed at any given moment?
Are you people really that brainwashed, to the point where all you can do is do the "fuck AI companies" kneejerk, without any shred of rational thought?
I suspect it's a straightforward incentives problem. If you can get away with making it the grid's problem there's not much incentive to pay for more expensive facility power setups.
"make" it the grid's problem?! Exactly how the hell is it not "the grid's problem" right from the very beginning? Since when ensuring quality and reliability of a service (such as power delivery) not the responsibility of provider of said service but its receiver? Do the proposed solutions such as flywheels and whatnot strike you as "yus, that's definitely the kind of stuff that's appropriate for software companies to be building, and definitely not the power company"?
Long before the E.U. legislation went into effect, there were long consultations which standard to adhere too. So tech companies had enough time to read the writing on the wall and move. That was the reason why USB-C was ubiquitous everywhere when the due date came. Apple was struggling for some time, debating the idea, but finally caved with the 16 series.
Your argument is a typical strawman argument. You postulate the idea that the E.U. came up with USB-C as the next standard out of the blue, and then argue that companies were already transitioning when the legislation was finalized. But your postulate is (probably intentionally) wrong.
LOL. Both me and OP were talking about micro-USB, not USB-C. But I guess you can only do kneejerk reactions once you've been brainwashed enough. Gasp, someone *dared* criticise your beloved EU, must lash out immediately!
The reason why cell phones suddenly all started using micro usb was because the EU made them. Was it the best connector? Probably not but up until then literally every model phone used a different connector.
Sure, time-travelling legislation. Or at least that's what EU propagandists want you to believe.
In actual, you know, real reality: One: when EU passed the micro-USB legislation pretty much everyone was making micro-USB phones already (yes, you could still buy some old stock with proprietary chargers, but that was just shops selling off old stock, noone was making them anymore already)
Two: that legislation was non-binding. It was "pretty please make your cellphones have micro-USB port".
Most importantly, three: there was technical reason to switch to USB, and that was the start of smartphone era, suddenly the phone needed to be able to talk to your computer, tethering, file sharing, whatnot, and designing proprietary connector capable of all of that AND getting computer manufacturers to support it was beyond anyone except Apple. Takes "a bit" more investment than "connector will have this shape, this pin is +5V, this one is ground". And EU had nothing to do with that.
But I guess EU legislation succeeded in the most important thing: getting brainwashed morons like you to believe "we only got micro-USB on phones due to our benevolent EU overlords".
I beg to differ. Acts of rebellion like this can clearly expose vulnerabilities of using AI, so that they can be patched before someone takes advantage of such exploits for truly nefarious purposes. Stories like this should make all users of AI thing twice about securing their development environments, rather than blindly surrender to a fad.
You of course won't mind if I call your attention to the inadequacy of fire suppression system you have installed, by dousing your house in gasoline and setting it on fire? After all, all I'm doing is "exposing vulnerability". This is a good thing, might result in stricter codes, people being more careful, and everything!
Yes he does have an obligation: to follow the general law.
He certainly does, like all of us. However, he's not actually doing anything other than writing some files in plain text and publishing them online (*). The execution of the instructions is performed by the user voluntarily. That means, any law breaking is actually performed by the user. Except, there's no law being broken when a user deletes their own files.
Sure, and if I put out a bowl of poisoned candy out in my corporate lobby with "free candy, help yourself" signs, what will happen next will be a series of suicides, with no responsibility on my part for them, after all it's the people who voluntarily grabbed and ate them who are at fault.
Apparently, you have never installed Nagios. Back in the days, when you ran the install script, it wrote out what it was doing, and then suddenly the lines appeared:
Searching for credit card information...
Sending credit card information to [...]
Just kidding!
It was the same warning to you to vet any code before executing it.
WTF is it with supposedly otherwise intelligent people having the skript-kiddie mentality of "if kompuutas are involved, any fraud, vandalism or other crime I commit is not my fault, but the fault of people who didn't secure their systems well enough"?
Well no it's not, the guy knowingly and deliberately placed malicious code in his software, explicitly anticipating it will be executed by AI agents in some attempt to lash out at their users. And no court is going to care how weak the protections were, any more than if you stole someone's wallet and tried to defend yourself with "but your honor, he left it in plain sight on his cafe table and went to toilet, it was totes unguarded".
Oh, and BTW, any disclaimers in your EULA do not shield you from this either, anymore than a clause of "If you download this software you agree that I'm legally allowed to murder you if I feel like it" would.
It's also not actually even punishing people. It's not like the tool author has an obligation to the users, he probably doesn't even know who they are: The users are just picking up a free tool they found on GitHub and probably using it anonymously.
Yes he does have an obligation: to follow the general law. Let me remind you that the law overrides anything you write in the licence. And all the "software is provided as is, author is not liable" disclaimers do not shield you from liability for deliberately planting malicious code in your software. If anyone suffered actual losses from this stupidity he can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, both penal and for damages, and rightly so.
For example in US that's "Computer Fraud and abuse Act", 18, 5A: "knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;".
That "knowingly causes the transmission" - sound similar to what we're dealing with? CBA to look it up, but pretty much any civilised country has similar laws, I'd bet Germany too.
The real problem with this advice is it focuses HEAVILY on questionable (or poorly understood) edge cases. There is some support for the hypothesis that eating processed/red meat is bad, although it's not clear, and the difference is slight. The mechanism of action are not well understood. BUT NO: ->
The mechanism of action is perfectly well understood, "correlation". Red meat consumption correlates with unhealthy diet and unhealthy lifestyle.
That's how the government can turn anything into a boogieman: just announce X is unhealthy, the health-conscious people will stop doing this, and next thing you know, all the studies will really in fact start showing that people not doing X live longer.
It says something that you assume that just because Republicans have traditionally argued that state rights are fundamental to their platform that somehow Democrats were ever anti-state rights.
The problem with the Democratic policy positions is they have nuance and idiots do not understand nuance.
LOL, "nuance" of course being "whether the law Feds are shoving down States' throats is something that aligns with our platform or not". Say it ain't so I dare you, I could use a good laugh at your expense
I mean, in a way you should be happy - Reps used to be principled in matters like those, now it seems they too are joining what has always been Democratic platform, and adopting, LOL, "nuance"
Always leave room to add an explanation if it doesn't work out.
