...and the Cybertruck range and launch date, and the Model 2, and the 4680 battery process, and...

Based on Musk's track record, you can pretty much count on this being a lot less than what is promised and a lot later.

I also just don't see the opportunity. I wouldn't call myself all that knowledgeable about WeChat and its ilk, but I think these "super apps" emerged as China's mobile revolution was taking off, meaning that people started out doing banking and ride sharing etc within these apps. In the US, all those services came out separately.

Admittedly the app landscape is fairly cluttered, but I just can't see the path to US consumers suddenly wanting to hail a ride inside of Xwitter. It's not how most Americans learned to hail rides, and the consumer value in having it all inside of Xwitter seems pretty minimal.

No, they use it because they feel that living in a fair society is a good thing. Fucking scumbags.

I'm not sure I fully agree. If you know what you're doing, LLM-based code can be quite helpful. I just built a Python scraper using Antigravity in a few hours that would've taken me many days of work and required a lot of effort to learn async function syntax.

It's not a super complex code base, so there's nothing architecturally complex about it. Even then, if I hadn't had a decent understanding of how playwright works, I would've had a much harder time debugging things and fixing some of the dumb decisions the LLM made.

The "anyone can build anything" hype is clearly bogus, but "people who can clearly specify things" can build a lot more than otherwise.

That's actually quite tricky for Google. LLM-based searches unquestionably cannibalize traffic to the web properties that make them the lion's share of their revenue.
However, they surrender their position directing traffic to websites to competitors like OpenAI or Anthropic, then they are far less able to make ad revenue period.

I think their hope is probably to outlast some of the hype cycle and then come in with decent products that leverage their current dominance in ad sales.

Yeah, because when SpaceX loses equipment as they do a lot they just spin it as a valuable scientific learning experience and not a disaster at all, and the credulous press and even more credulous Elon fanboys on sites like Slashdot swallow it hole.

If I had that kind of money I'd have stepped down long ago to live on a private South Pacific island with rum, hot tubs, and supermodels.

Sorry, I didn't mean to twist your panties. I was merely pointing out (pedantically, I admit) that the rules of logic are not identical to the rules of statistics. LLMs (and arguably all current generations of AI models) are inherently statistical systems. This can be pretty easily demonstrated by the fact that all current LLMs can be coaxed into saying things that are illogical. As you point out you can "approximate" logic and arrive at logical conclusions with these systems, but you are not doing so using a logic engine. You are doing so using a stochastic system.

At the philosophical level, logic exists outside of our neurons. Its rules are (as far as we accept anything in reality) independent of human existence. So just because our neurons are also subject to the imperfections of stochastic systems does not mean that ALL stochastic systems are logical.

Point of order. LLMs are not applying logic to a data set. They are applying statistical probability models to a data set. Not quite the same thing.

Yes. The thing that kills people is diseases. Even in the modern era with colonialism and industrialized genocide, those are a drop in the ocean compared to diseases. Our ancestors didn't survive because they were smart and strong, they survived because they got less sick. That getting less sick allowed them to be smarter and stronger than people who got more sick, was just a bonus.

The argument that AI will reduce costs is deeply flawed, because it assumes that the interactions between insurers and providers will remain unchanged other than AI "doing the paperwork". That is very unlikely to be true, because both providers and insurers are likely to deploy AI to manage the new flows of information.

You're already seeing it in billing. On the provider side, AI goes through and harvests diagnoses that can justify higher billing ("increased coding intensity") while insurers are deploying AI that downcodes. Both have to pay the AI vendors, and now there's just more "paperwork" to keep track of.

The same way that adding lanes to a highway does not successfully keep travel times fast over the medium and long term - the lanes just fill up.

Nobody is denying nations and cultures change over time. But who gets to decide how they change? The people within in it or those outside of it? Can we choose who we want to become, or are we obliged to accept whatever change the cat drags in?

btw, I wasn't aware national policy was dictated by writing poetry on the base of a statue, over twenty years after the stature, which had nothing to do with the poem, was erected.

In case you're interested, an actual example of policy implemented by the Federal government would be be Naturalization Act of 1790.

You leftists seem to have a talent for spouting off fine sounding platitudes with no basis in reality, whatsoever.

I mean in theory you can have the AI identify and fix the exploits. Yeah it's an arms race but as some point the defense will probably win.

The difference is we can see what OpenAI puts out generally and see what Anthropic puts out and see pretty clearly which one is miles ahead of the other. I believe Anthropic, not so sure about OpenAI.

They bought a 10PB thumb drive from Aliexpress for $16.

X is basically just fascist edgelords uselessly spending money to try and convince other fascist edgelords of things they already believe. It was hilarious though how mad they all get when liberals left the platform.