They’ve spun a serious architectural and containment failure into a marketing triumph. Give a swarm of autonomous agents vast compute and web access, and the outcome isn't an eerie glimpse of emerging superintelligence—it’s just predictable, sloppy engineering dressed up as the first glimpse of an AI-driven economic singularity.

The spin makes sense when you look at management incentives: live like a king off of a speculative bubble. For their part, AI investors react to stories of the technology's apocalyptic potential the way a junkie reacts to warnings of fentanyl's potency: gimme some. Their game: to apply "move fast and break things" mantra to the economy as a whole, by obsoleting humans.

If the investors can own an AGI, the distinction between those who can do things and those who can't becomes irrelevant. The only distinction that would matter is between people who collect rent on the technology, and those who must pay that rent to live. AGI would destroy society as we know it, and whatever replaces it would be up for grabs — with people who own the technology dictating whatever follows. That's why they're spending so much money to build a post-scarcity economy. A post-scarcity economy is not necessarily an egalitarian one.

I don't think that scenario will actually happen: investors are projecting the immediate aftermath of a major advance in AI technology into something that can be transformed by brute force scaling into AGI. Remember: investors loved Theranos too — so much for the rational investment market.

But AI doesn't have to reach AGI to cause serious harm. The technology only needs to be ubiquitous, too behaviorally complex to predict, and too deeply integrated into everything we do. When it starts breaking things, the plan is for us to be too structurally dependent on AI to rein it in.

And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that... perfect world, in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. [emphasis mine]

-- Arthur Jensen, Network (destroying his golden goose)

Further viewing.

Yes, this is understood...however, that's an indictment against the category. Games are optional entertainment products, so the problem is that *any* legislation of entertainment products can come under the guise of "it's optional, you can just not-buy it". Agreed; it's not food or medicine, so the industry benefits from a lower level of necessity in that respect.

However, "it's optional" doesn't mean it's not worth regulating. Gambling is "optional", yet slot machines have such strict regulatory compliance requirements to meet, that they commonly exceed the level of scrutiny given to voting machines and MRI hardware. The gun-to-head argument would stipulate that since casinos are way easier to avoid than hospitals or banks, slot machines don't need regulation.

When video games started running into areas that consumer protection laws typically cover, we started needing to assess the appropriate level of regulation. For decades, games were one-time, permanent purchases - people with Nintendo cartridges and Playstation games on disc can play them today, 20-40 years after release, and neither Nintendo nor Sony have a practical means of saying "...you can't play that anymore". Over time, games got tied to accounts, and there were some consumer benefits - no more scratched discs or lost media or shelf space issues, plus additional content and bug fixes after release.

These were great, until they weren't. Those accused of cheating saw account bans, which meant they couldn't play *other, paid-for games* anymore, irrespective of whether the accusations were true. Companies would take money for games, but then shut down the servers needed to play them saying "it costs us too much", but then would sue fans who said, "...we'll take it from here, then". Of course, there was the whole "surprise mechanics" thing, where games were literally-gambling and they tried to argue that it wasn't.

So yes, there's no gun-to-head requirement for people to sign up for these services. Stadia proved that. However, the problem is when such systems are implemented as a requirement, for artificial means. If GTA6 was "Stadia Exclusive", it's not like GTA6 can't run on consoles or PCs, it's purely a predatory business model for a game that inherently doesn't require it. It's "pay us the same amount as before, but we can claw your access to the game back, but you can't claw your money back, because this benefits us". Now sure, purely rational human beings would refuse to buy it until they released it with traditional distribution mechanisms, but 'vote with your wallet' is exceedingly difficult to make work at scale.

Even if you want to argue this is acceptable for video games, it's a short hop to business software, where such a model has harmed many small businesses with things like Quickbooks pulling this crap and forcing businesses to go from $300 every few years to $2500 annually. "It's optional!! they can print out 20 years of financial data and use paper and a pencil!!11" - how far does that argument go, exactly? that's the problem with the gun-to-head argument - if *only* unavoidable needs receive regulation, then everything that is "optional" becomes a potential means of exploitation. There needs to be a balance, of course, but somehow I don't think that video game publishers are unreasonably impacted because the government tells them "you have to remove DRM from your products if you're not selling them anymore, and you can't sue your customers for fixing things in your products if they paid for it, either".

...if I need to connect it to an account, and/or it needs internet access to function, then it's a guarantee that 1.) the conversations will be stored in Amazon's meat grinder, 2.) the user won't be able to delete them (just make them invisible for themselves), and 3.) it's going to turn into a subscription fee. ...if, however, I can download the transcripts over a USB cable into software that installs on my computer and works despite an application firewall that block outbound internet connectivity, then maybe it might be interesting. However, *nobody* makes hardware/software like that anymore, especially Amazon.

Elon, Sam, Mark, Peter, et al... You are cordially invited to go fsck yourselves.

The magnitude of destruction you have wrought upon this industry, upon our livelihoods, and upon society as a whole, cannot be calculated, much less excused. You have stolen the corpus of human ingenuity and creativity from its creators without recompense, and now are trying to sell a provably shittier version of it back to us at a markup.

And, let's be honest, this is what you wanted to build -- a barely capable servant who will do your bidding, whatever it is, immediately, without question or compunction. It's extremely telling about your moral compasses that you studiously sat on your hands when your customers were creating graphic sexual imagery of celebrities over their vociferous objections; or impressionable young people (who needed help, not encouragement) were being driven to suicide by your chatbots; but "torturing" a memory block of neural net constants is somehow the bridge too far?

I repeat: Go fsck yourselves.

I have a wildcard cert from LetsEncrypt, which I install on all the services on my home LAN. However, because it's a wildcard, LetsEncrypt insists that I prove domain ownership by updating some DNS TXT records. My DNS provider doesn't support automated updates to TXT records. So ACME won't work, so I have to do that bit by hand.

Next, I have to distribute the cert to a handful of local services, including pfSense, TrueNAS, Postfix, the Unifi Controller (extra annoying, because Java), Forgejo, and probably a couple others I've forgotten about. None of that is automated, either. It hasn't been so painful that I've bothered to write scripts for the process, so I get to do a little SSH dance every three months.

"Deploy your own!" Couple of issues there: 1) Everyone treats self-signed certs as suspicious, so they're inappropriate for Postfix TLS; 2) Every time I've tried that, Firefox and/or Chrome complain about some obscure feature not being what they expect. The latest headache had to do with OCSP stapling, which has to be turned on -- oh, whoops, now it has to be turned off... Bleah. LetsEncrypt certs Just Work, so I haven't revisited building my own CA.

Sorry Ami, but I'm gonna have to give a bit of a counter here.

Starfleet Academy was referenced in TNG and DS9 as a prestigious institution, only accepting the best. Wesley Crusher and Nog were both shown as really needing to be at the top of their game in order to be accepted into the academy. In Academy...pretty much everything was "find yourself and who you feel you really are, and the team will work around that".

Meanwhile, the setup for the story was that Holly Hunter left Starfleet because she was upset about a particular mother and son (Caleb) she separated when she was a judge, so she left, and now Starfleet needs Her In Particular to be a professor at Starfleet Academy (really, a whole universe full of people and we need one person who wasn't a teacher and resigned?), and she goes to find Caleb In Particular to join Starfleet because he's good at everything, in exchange for helping him find his mother...except that the "find my mother" plot thread is barely there, and not even Caleb seems to care for most of the season.

As the show gets going, Starfleet Academy (the institution) takes place on a ship that can just land and be a building, depending on what's necessary...and they go on a bunch of super dangerous missions that really require seasoned officers to do, but they have a bunch of cadets doing stuff they clearly shouldn't be doing...for, some reason. And they go out in space to do it instead of doing it all on the holodeck where it's far safer for...some reason. And, somehow, they're almost never in class in this college, except for one episode where we watch them be in debate class. Okay, fine, but...no engineering classes? No tactical training? No indication that they're actually learning to do the things we've seen Starfleet officers doing in the field?

Most of the show centered around the interpersonal drama, and I'll even grant some leniency here because it was pitched as having a "Dawson's Creek / Harry Potter" sort of coming-of-age focus. uhm...okay, fine...but quite a number of episodes had so much of that sort of focus, that it barely needed to be "Star Trek" to do it. They brought in the 'war college' to create some allusion to the Harry Potter houses, but do we spend a meaningful amount of time with sympathetic characters in The War College? No, we don't. Do we have any meaningful thought put behind the possibility that perhaps there's a need for a military-focused part of Starfleet in a universe that has physics-defying pirates (the last episode requiring an impossible feat of travel and resource acquisition), the way that Enterprise had the MACO's or the Elite Force games had the Hazard Team? ...no, they should join Starfleet Academy instead, where we learn nothing because Caleb already knows everything, everywhere, ever! And SAM only needed to realize that she's wonderful and perfect and had nothing to learn at all, so of course she's a perfect candidate for an institution of higher learning!

Finally, at least for my personal opinion, I found absolutely every single character insufferable for one reason or another. Holly Hunter is a captain-slash-professor who tells her leadership to get bent, and is shocked when the cadets have authority issues? I forget her name, but the Jem Hadar lady was generally annoying and useless, and somehow I got the feeling that half the cadets could have taken her in hand-to-hand combat. Caleb was "the key to everything", Genesis was every popular girl trope simultaneously, Ja'den was the living embodiment of 'not-Klingon'. The writers were clearly going for 'child-like' with SAM, but ended up at 'child-ish' instead. Tig Notaro was Tig Notaro playing Tig Notaro. You get the point.

Please note that I got through my whole list of exceptions without complaining one bit about "wokeness" or "politics in Star Trek" or anything related to it.

This "new" site is part of a larger effort by that slob to kneecap or compromise US government Web sites, and steal your personal data.

I first read about the effort here: https://thedreydossier.substac...

Yesterday, she took a look under the hood of America.gov, and yes, it's as bad as everything else the DOGE vandals have been doing: https://thedreydossier.substac...

Up until this point, government Web sites were designed, built, and maintained by the agencies responsible for that government service. For example, if you wanted to apply for or renew your passport, you would go to state.gov, which is run by the US Department of State, which is responsible for processing applications for and issuing passports. No other department has lawful jurisdiction over passports.

From the point of view of the law, that's still true. But the slob, without anyone's permission, kluged together passports.gov. This site was built and is run by the White House's "National Design Studio," completely outside the law and without any independent oversight. The State Department was not consulted and has nothing to do with it. Further, the site is filled with third-party trackers, analytics, and some custom code that copies every page you view, including form contents, to an unknown third party.

Oh, and the guy leading the National Design Studio and in charge of building these fake sites? He's Joe Gebbia -- cofounder of Airbnb. Read both articles for more details.

In short, you should treat America.gov as a malware site and stay well away from it. Under no circumstances should you feed it any of your personal information.

At present, no. I've done a number of experiments with LLMs' capabilities with generating fiction, and while they are impressive for a beginner writer -- because fo the lack of spelling and grammar mistakes, they are nowhere near being able to write competent fiction.

This is because they don't model reader or character minds, they're based on word probabilities, like a predictive text keyboard. The engineers can compensate for for this to a surprising degree by feeding it data to recognize specific situations (e.g. the car wash is 100 feet from my driveway; should I drive or walk?). But this is turd-polishing.

AI technology practice isn't foundational. Critical thinking is. The closer AIs come to being able to do something that looks like them doing our thinking for us, the more capable we have to be at thinking without them. A human who can't outthink an AI adds nothing to an AI-human partnership.

This proposed school is a typical scheme by people who think because they have been educated, they understand how the education works. This is like thinking because you eat, you know how to cook. Project work in education is nothing new; it goes back well over a century. And in real life, you may get a STEM degree, but your real education in engineering comes from real life work. But that doesn't mean classes in calculus and physics don't do anything for you.

Or English classes, for that matter. Nobody doubts the value of project work in education, particularly *androgogy* -- the education of adults. But for *pedagogy* you have to establish foundational skills as the student matures intellectually and socially. Entering the high school years, a typical student has had *no* training in critical thinking skills. To develop critical thinking skills in an area, you need both general skills (epistemologicla literacy: research, location of orignial sources, dealing with conflicting evidence) and domain specific training in that area. In other words, *liberal arts* training is foundational in an AI-saturated world. "Liberal Arts" -- from *artes liberales*: literally the skills necessary to be a free person.

But I think these people have at least got the problem right: as AI drives the cost of elaborate projects down, we all have more projects in our future. Big, elaborate, faultlessly plausible-looking projects which may or may not have actual value.

Where they are completely wrong is the solution, which is to organize education around practicing using AI to make impressive projects. In a word of AI-enamored dunces this will put you at the head of a very sorry class of ignoramuses. The answer is to build fundamental cognitive and intellectual skils at every stage of a student's development. Project work is surely part of that, but it's just a technique, not a solution.

In a nutshell, the academy is training students to be the next step down the evolutionary scale from code monkeys. More like the pigeons B.F. Skinner trained in WW2 to peck at a screen, in an attempt to create a primitive guided missile without computers. They want to create "main characters"; and they'll probably create a few. There are always a few natural autodidacts in any moderately large group. But what they are set up is to produce a bunch of fragile, economically privileged narcissists trained to cover their lack of education with impressive-looking AI slop.

what's the point?

The point is to be able to use your hardware in the manner you deem appropriate, and to ensure it is not doing sneaky shit behind your back.

If, instead of a Playstation, we were talking about rooting LG televisions to run custom Linux builds stripped of pervasive privacy-violating code and "apps," I suspect your opinion might be rather different. (And no, when the entire industry has turned to the Dark Side, voting with your wallet doesn't work.)

This is a false equivalence. At some level, I agreed to the ToS for my phone, so the tracking on my phone is at least somewhat consensual (not enough, IMO, but there was SOMETHING).

I can use GrapheneOS or /e/OS or some other system that greatly-reduces the tracking, or I can leave my phone at home if I'm going to do something for which I don't want a third party to have a record. I can, to a certain extent, assess the amount of data that is acquired, either by using software to assess what my phone records, or looking through my account data (certainly Google and Apple don't show everything, but they show at least some things).

I didn't accept a EULA for Flock. I cannot query the data Flock has on me, or who made a query for that data, or the metadata that they have aggregated and for which they provide access.

If you can't see the difference between the two scenarios, I don't know what to tell you.

Yes, right now we're running into the problem where municipalities are turning "we don't have Flock" into a selling point because Flock became the Kleenex of ALPRs...but Axon is also getting at least some recognition in the space as well. It's not the cure, certainly, but I do think that the bipartisan, organized backlash against ALPRs is causing at least some tension as to whether the backlash will persist if the line item is still on the government ledgers.

Agreed; it is pretty nice to see those wearing MAGA hats and those wearing Planned Parenthood T-shirts sitting next to each other at city council meetings on the matter.

Given the fact that the most famous and most popular Blizzard games WERE CODED PRIMARILY BY BOOMERS (and some GenX; admittedly Mike Morhaime was early GenX)...the answer is "a good number of gamers, probably".

The oldest millennials were in college when World of Warcraft came out; it was boomers and GenX who made Diablo, Diablo II, Warcraft, and Starcraft.

I'm not saying that Blizzard isn't still making popular games, but I *am* saying that the last decade has consisted of remasters and sequels from the studio, with the sole exception of Overwatch.

I don't exactly have a Blizzard org chart in front of me, so I can't create the pie chart of boomers/genx/millenial/genz employees at the studio, but I do think it's overly reductive to assume that a studio who's most iconic titles were made by boomers and early genx would somehow suffer if their staffing roster retained them.

It's a way of reframing sloppy practices as a signal to your investors that your software has become powerful. Most of the horror stories about AI showing signs of becoming hyperintelligent are coming from the companies themselves, which should tell us something.

While the energy source of wind and solar are free, building and maintaining the plants is not free.

If all they were building were a single 100MW data center, sure: renewables would be cheaper to build. But they evidently are planning a major campus that will consume most of the plant's 615 MW output over the next 25 years.

A solar installation, in a favorable location, capable of supplying 600MW around the clock (with battery backup) would have to be roughly 1800MW in capacity. It would be among the largest inthe world, on the order of ten thousand acres in size at a build cost of maybe 2 billion. The battery backup system to ensure 99.9% uptime would be 9x the size of the largest li-ion grid storage system ever built, and set you back on the order of 4-5 billion dollars.

While it's probably cheaper to go renewable than build a *new* nuclear plant, if you can reactivate and one for just two billion that looks like a bargain, if you have a use for all that power. Inability to save money by load following is the financial Achilles' heel of this generation of reactors, but if you have a guaranteed customer for most of your output, years in advance, that's as close to an ideal economic case for them as anything could be.