Those issues are not new. What *is* new is that AI mimicry has lowered the bar for attacks substantially.

It's a mixture. Intel licensed their designs to AMD for a while so IBM could use AMD as a second source. Later they became competitors. There's no evidence of "reverse engineering", which isn't even a bad thing (reverse engineering is what you do if you want to create a 1:1 compatible version of a product without copying it - you basically create as best you can documentation of how something should work, and then use the documentation to create a design) or of stealing it. And why would they steal it and then reverse engineer it? Rather at some point when they stopped getting licenses AMD just... made their own version based on Intel's public specs. As have a number of companies, using various degrees of reverse engineering, including NEC, Chips and Technologies, Cyrix, VMT, VIA Technologies, and even IBM.

Furthermore, the chip in your PC right now, be it Intel's or AMD's, is mostly an AMD design, with some legacy Intel design crufted on. That's right, AMD, not Intel, came up with the 64-bit ABI that most of us have been using since the mid-2010s. And Intel licensed it from them. It's AMD's technology now.

Does that mean Intel are the good guys after all? No, this is corporate bullshit. Neither AMD nor Intel are inherently good or bad. Intel foisted some pretty awful CPU architectures on the world before coming up with a non-mediocre one in the form of the 80386 (cue the idiot I argued with the other day who'll claim the 8086 is a modern CPU and works the way modern CPUs do and does not have a ridiculous architecture - you're still wrong!) because they didn't know what they were doing after FF left to found Zilog, but had the market dominance, mostly through mindshare, to get their CPUs everywhere.

AMD were responsible for the bulk of the "runs a little hot" CPU wars in the late 1990s/early 2000s, where AMD pushed power sucking cooling-system-overworking CPUs to try to beat Intel's performance... but then Intel decided to ape them until the Core architecture, so Intel's not a good guy there either.

Both have made mistakes and tried to paper over them. Both have fired people who didn't deserve it. Both are, ultimately, sociopathic corporations.

Unlike Motorola. Which they still made CPUs. ;-) 68000 FTW!

> Maybe it's because AMD stock sits around $196 while Intel hovers near $41,

What? This is what passes for financial literacy these days? Do they think that the stock price of two equal companies is equal?

Maybe Berkshire Hathaway Inc, stock price $716,299.99 at the time of writing, can buy both of them, and use the money in the couch to buy Apple? I mean, if that's how the stock market works...

For those who really do think this is a thing, look up "Market Capitalization". That, divided by the number of shares, constitutes the share price, and is the market cap is considered the stock market valuation of a company. AMD does have a higher market cap at $355B to Intel's $253B, but those numbers are within 30% of each other, not nearly 5x.

Just creepy crawlies looking for their 5 minutes in the spotlight while the audience is ooh-ing and aah-ing the destruction and opening their wallets to buy trinkets.

Them's there alternative facts meester! I gots plenty! It's see-ent-tuffic, y'see!

It's not just widespread, it's universal. What varies from person to person is the domain that they apply thinking to, and how they validate the authority they choose to trust.

Nobody is an "independent thinker" on every topic. Wherever one is an expert, one tends to be an "independent thinker" in that domain. Where you don't feel knowledgeable, you tend to accept an authoritative source...possibly after doing some amount of checking to see whether others think it reliable.

I don't think it's directly related to IQ. I also don't think it's restricted to chatbots. A lot of people are willing to accept the opinion of any authoritative source that they've accepted. Think religion or political party. Once they accept it, they stop questioning it's proclamations.

Note that this also applied to those who accept the proclamations of scientists or compilers. Once you accept an authoritative source, you pretty much stop questioning it. It's been multiple decades since I really argued with a compiler...unless it was a known bug from a source I trusted. I generally just assumed that I misunderstood what the language meant by that construct. (Of course, the few times I really didn't accept it, I eventually turned out to be wrong. Oh.)

obligatory gravity well explainer

There's no overarching EU law. There are EU regulations and directives, and the member states (who each have their own state laws) must fold those directives into their own state laws in a way that fits. The regulations tend to be very targeted.

So in a manner of speaking, it's all state laws, no "federal" law, just local interpretations of "federal" directives and some common standards. And contracts in each state have to follow state law. If someone objects that a "federal" directive is broken, then they can sue the state in an EU court, etc.

A big difference with America is that a legal precedent in one state doesn't mean anything in another state. It often doesn't mean anything in the same state either. The judges interpret the legal texts, but do not create new case law. You can't refer back to some judge such-and-such who said something was ok in a similar lawsuit, so therefore it must be ok going forward in all future lawsuits.

That's a meaningless statement. The politicians frame the engagement, but that has always been the case in all wars everywhere. Read Clausewitz. There are parameters and objectives. If a general can't deliver within these parameters, it means he's not good enough.

Same if your boss is telling you to build some accounting software, and you complain that it's impossible and he should let you build a flight simulator instead.

The thing with most countries that aren't america is you cant just unilaterally change a contract even with "30 days notice", you need to get the customer to actively consent, click a button that says "I acknowledge this nonsense" or whatever. Netflix was fined for breaking Italian law, in Italy.

Netflix are absolutely NOT in the right, and that should not be controversial to anyone

The US is not the best military in the world. It's the best *on paper*, if the metric used is heavy on equipment and light on strategy/tactics. There's a reason the US has been losing most wars since WWII. It's not the politicians. It's guerilla warfare, which the US military is not nimble enough to handle, with its heavy emphasis on equipment and process.

Go back through history and you'll find that the generals we remember and celebrate are those who thought out of the box, it's never been a pure game of technology.

10B/1M = 10,000 per "engineer" (*). I don't know about you, but I don't get out of bed for that kind of value. Moreover, it's Microsoft money, meaning it's probably just vouchers for time on the cloud, as if that's real money.

(*) it's actually less, the budget is likely going to pay for advertising and events etc.

How do you think the AI-embracing businesses must feel, when the three employees who are left realize that their AI collaborators are all offline?