"The plebs shall not have computing power of his own!" is not just in the interest of Sam Altman, it is also quite compatible with the notion of many politicians that the underlings shall be obedient and not think for themselves, thus underlings having AI at their disposal, which is not censored and controlled centrally, is something they will want to avoid.

So better prepare for the time when "personal compute and storage" will be strictly capped at low levels in order to make everyone depend on centralized cloud services.

This CEO probably got his weird belief in "no more engineering required" reinforced by "talking to AI", so he got paranoid about every other company betting on AI eating his lunch.

Oh yes, we have exactly that at the same time: LLMs generate code doing (mostly) what you ask the code to do. If what you ask for is missing security relevant aspects, you will get very insecure code in return. At the same time, the same LLM could very well point out to a different user who is asking to identify security issues in the code where such issues indeed are.

It will almost certainly be because of inertia. Company boards see what works, they see something successful. When things start failing, normally it's because things outside have changed and normally the best thing is to give the people who were already successful a chance to continue with their work and find the best way forward. Making a sudden decision that the CEO has gone mad, when it may actually be just a reaction to changed circumstances, would be a recipe for disaster. That means company boards often take ages to act. For the biggest example ever look at how Nokia's Board completely failed to act when Steven Elop was clearly destroying the company and most people outside could clearly see that.

Excellent idea, though it probably won't work. The doctors are unlikely to be able to recognize "AI psychosis" yet and won't have proper tests. Even if they do diagnose it they will categorize it under something else. Shouldn't we be calling it "super intelligent psychosis" anyway???

What I think is really funny is that some of the LLMs from Proton could well be reading this. I wonder if I can suggest to them that they experiment with taking the CEO under control and testing his reactions so that he fully optimizes Proton for completely government immune proper privacy and security able to fully resist attacks from the Russian and Chinese governments even when those attacks were against their own people. This could be really interesting, debates about intelligence aside. Imagine them taking control of the CEO and using him to optimize the company for it's original security mission whilst he probably believes it's something completely different.

If the blockchain is the final arbiter of ownership, is this really theft. I am happy to admit that it can be abuse of someone else's computer, which would make it illegal, but the blockchain is specifically designed to opt out of other normal legal controls. Having made that choice, suddenly coming back and demanding that we call it "theft" in a traditional legal sense, when there's no such clear definition within bitcoin, is very weird.

And yes, I agree that bitcoin that North Korea and/or Russia have taken should be transferred to someone else if the NSA or some other hacking organization can find a way to do that. However, that applies also to any bitcoin that those governments have acquired through trade or other more traditional means. Also, if they do manage to do that, the NSA or others should keep the bitcoin and sell it on the open market. There is no reasonable way to say that it has an owner that it should be returned to.

No. I mean, we shouldn't steal it from them, but they should be subject to taxation at a minimum at the level they would have paid if they had real investments in the economy just so that things are fair to everybody. More importantly, when they choose crypto, they are 100% responsible for any losses and nobody else has any responsibility to make sure that they get to keep their stuff. That's entirely on them and any service providers they choose to pay for themselves. It makes sense for actual US dollars or British pounds to be protected on some level by the secret service or Bank of England respectively because that's what they are paid for and that's the promise you get when you invest in those. It makes sense for deposits in normal registered American Banks or normal British Banks to be protected by the US authorities or British security services respectively. It makes no sense for anyone to care about people who deliberately chose to opt out of those protections by choosing a system invented by someone else.

In fact, it's actively harmful to market competition as well as essentially giving away taxpayer resources to foreign adversaries for anyone to attempt to protect crypto. You are and should be on your own. Eventually this will help people to begin to understand the value of having a system that enforces laws.

... in the old days, when robbing 1,000,000 $ out of a bank was a deemed a "big heist". Those poor thieves really had to work hard moving all that physical Gold and paper money, right?

... on this one topic - a search like https://www.youtube.com/result... brings up dozens of AI-generated videos, with only a very few in between made by humans.

And it is not even unlikely that inside Bank of America, they let AI-agents also handle customer passwords, in typical "rules for thee but nor for me" fashion.

... he used up in the process of making this photo. Though unlikely, given today's printer ink prices.

Yes, but very few: https://isaiprofitable.com/

To me that seems like an absurd idea, especially because you have to reach across multiple better input devices to even reach the screen for your pawing... and I rarely agree with any Apple sentiment.

If that object is on the larger end of its estimated size, we could call it "spare moon" and keep it around just in case some terrible accident happens to Earth's moon and we need a new one to replace it ;-)

Sorry, but everyone still remembers that EMACS stood for "Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping" - cannot have that, now that RAM prices have surpassed gold and diamond prices, and almost reached HP printer ink price levels!

I've met that in some terrible Indian IT consulting type companies. I can't understand why they don't understand that there is an FOSS market, that it's the key area for development of strategic software but also for current attempts by companies to control and develop future software. More strange is the fact that they must know that FOSS is included in Windows, MacOS, z/OS and basically everything else. In the 1990s, when Microsoft was still fighting it's battles of old then this could be sustainable, but now, nobody can honestly believe they are doing it. I guess that it's only companies with a deeply corrupt management structure and a rule breaking culture that allows them to actually use FOSS software whilst claiming not to do it which can continue to have such rules.