"OpenAI has warned US lawmakers that its Chinese rival DeepSeek is using unfair and increasingly sophisticated methods to extract results from leading US AI models to train the next generation of its breakthrough R1 chatbot, according to a memo reviewed by Bloomberg News."... ummm what?

Why is this a concern? If all it takes to build a competitive AI is to get responses from another AI and use it to train your own then why are any of the US companies valued as much as they are? At that rate, there is no competitive advantage and any intelligent enough team can simply extract that data and front their own AI.

I've gotta say OpenAI must have balls the size of basketballs to complain about this practice when they themselves siphoned data without permission from countless internet data sources. So it's okay when they do it to others but not okay when done to them? Yea.. cry me a river.

My thoughts exactly. Where are the chief scientists that actually led the implementation of the AI chatbots and other AI products? Where's the Demi Hassibis, Ilya Sutskever, Yann Lecun etc. of the AI world? Shouldn't they be considered the actual architects of the current crop of AI products and not the company CEOs who simply yap publicly about the products that others have built?

If Time really thinks the CEOs of companies that launched AI chatbots are the architects of AI then they're even more out of touch than I could have imagined. Simply ridiculous..

Technically, the US government does not approve mergers and acquisitions (M&A). They can decide to not investigate the M&A and let it proceed more quickly or if they choose, they can gum up proceedings by deciding to file suit in a court of law to try to stop it, but there is no guarantee that their arguments will result in the M&A not happening.

Most of these large M&As often end up happening with some restrictions being put in place to supposedly prevent anti-competitive behaviour. At this point, I don't see a strong argument that would indicate that this won't end up happening in this situation as well.

Paramount Skydance (PSKY) complaining about not winning the bid is pitiful. WBD wasn't even looking to be sold until PSKY decided to pursue them right after acquiring Paramount. If PSKY wasn't prepared to pay an insane premium for WBD and didn't have enough resources to acquire a company that was larger than they were then that's on them.

WBD shareholders will receive a premium on their share price and there's still a whole other chunk of the company that would be up for sale after Netflix acquires the film and streaming portion of it.

Is PSKY really willing and able to pay upwards of $40 ($28 plus potentially at least another $12 or more per share) to acquire all of WBD's assets?

Actually Superman beat the Fantastic Four in the domestic opening weekend totals. Superman had a $125 million domestic opening weekend while Fantastic Four had a $118 million domestic opening weekend box office. Quoting the opening day figure is a bit disingenous when referring to a film's opening as the summary does.

A film's opening box office is usually understood to mean the opening weekend box office and not a one-off one-day figure.. weird. Anyway here are some additional articles from variety that reference the actual domestic opening weekend figures and other stats for each of those films:

Superman:
https://variety.com/2025/film/...

Fantastic Four:
https://variety.com/2025/film/...

Shouldn't these customers be able to sue VMWare for damages and for VMWare to comply with the terms of the license? It seems really stupid that a company can enforce the terms of a license that a customer agreed but then a customer cannot. Aren't these licenses supposed to be a binding contract between vendor and customer?
What's so special about these VMWare licenses that allow them to renege on providing perpetual license holders with security updates simply because they want them to sign up for subscriptions?

I smell price increases!

Meanwhile this insanely corrupt former FIFA executive has managed to delay his extradition to the US for 8+ years and counting.. https://newsday.co.tt/2024/03/...

I was wondering the same damn thing after reading this.

'We make a product that is meant to be used by knowledge workers like ourselves but news flash using our product does not make sense for us. However, all of you other knowledge workers out there please keep using our product. Pretty please?'

You make it sound like this is the first time a country has decided to make Meta (and others) pay news publishers for reuse of their content.

Check out the following for a couple examples of the end result of this same song and dance:
https://techcrunch.com/2021/10...
and
https://techcrunch.com/2021/02...

Meta is playing hardball as it did in those other territories to get a better deal. Unfortunately for them the wildfires makes them look pretty petty at the moment and likely has weakened their bargaining position by more than they would like.

People really shouldn't be relying on Facebook for access to news but that's not the world we currently live in so it is what it is.

It sure is and you don't get the snark and half-assed answers that you often get with stack overflow.

Google would likely have a more compelling AI chatbot to showcase if they weren't so gung ho on figuring out how to integrate said chatbot with Google search without negatively impacting their ad revenue. Google's argument that they're taking it slow because of AI safety concerns is utter nonsense.

OpenAI has an undeniable lead at this point and with Microsoft's collaboration they're making even further strides. It's obviously better to make mistakes at the early stages of AI development before these things are used for mission critical services and iterate on those lessons learnd, which is exactly what OpenAI is doing.

Meanwhile Google is fumbling along with Bard (such a stupid non-easy name to say) and they haven't even gotten to the point where they can start improving the model via interactions with millions of users on the web.

It seems like they're playing catch-up with Copilot as well. Nothing that they've shown in the last few weeks has really instilled confidence that they'll be able to produce an industry leading AI, so I'm gonna guess Pichai et al are currently shitting themselves silly.

Why would execs working in close proximity make a difference in whether this bank failed or not? Did all execs and workers being on-site during the 2008 economic meltdown somehow prevent that from happening?

Randomly including activities which irk you in a list of reasons as to why a bank failed is seriously shoddy reporting (if you can even call it that) from the Financial Times. This is obviously a pathetic attempt of trying to spread the blame around to hopefully obfuscate the actual reasons behind why this bank and a few others have failed.

You can literally hear the FT mouthpieces whispering:

don't look for any more reasons, trust us remote work is the bane of all evil and we need to get rid of it if we want the banking sector to return to its previous glorious heights, well ever since our last economic meltdown.. which happened less than 15 years ago when remote work wasn't really a thing.. but don't think about that.. or the fact that the 2018 banking deregulation law allowed banks like SVB to no longer have to undergo an annual federal reserve stress test to ensure that they maintain certain levels of capital (to be able to absorb losses) and liquidity (to be able to quickly meet cash obligations), etc... you know actions that would have not helped to prevent this situation at all right?
Right?

Yep, remote work is obviously at fault here...

Doesn't Disney own a huge amount of the content that is on Disney+? How exactly are they losing money on that venture when they've surely gained millions of subscribers over the past few years?

Is it really a case of losing money on their streaming service or is it a case of not making enough profits?

"One solution is to import workers from other countries, such as the Philippines (which has a "robust" birthrate), but there is much resistance to that idea." I wondered why increasing the number of immigrants didn't seem to be mentioned in the summary. I took a look at the article and found the following:

"Japan is home to the oldest population in the world, after tiny Monaco. It is recording fewer births than ever before. By 2050, it could lose a fifth of its current population.

Yet its hostility to immigration has not wavered. Only about 3% of Japan's population is foreign-born, compared to 15% in the UK. In Europe and America, right-wing movements point to it as a shining example of racial purity and social harmony. But Japan is not as ethnically pure as those admirers might think. There are the Ainu of Hokkaido, Okinawans in the south, half a million ethnic Koreans, and close to a million Chinese.

Then there are Japanese children with one foreign parent, which include my own three.

These bi-cultural kids are known as "hafu" or halves - a pejorative term that's normal here. They include celebrities and sports icons, such as tennis star Naomi Osaka. Popular culture idolises them as "more beautiful and talented". But it's one thing to be idolised and quite another to be accepted.

If you want to see what happens to a country that rejects immigration as a solution to falling fertility, Japan is a good place to start."

If what the prime minister is predicting actually ends up happening then they obviously only have themselves to blame.

I would have to say that the UN should be the organization which makes these decisions since it's the closest thing we currently have to a world government.