Comment Re: I misread headline & jumped for joy (Score 1) 86
No, who's Meta?
Comment Re: I misread headline & jumped for joy (Score 3) 86
The stock price was inflated to start with, due to speculation. Elon was just taking advantage of the situation. "Oh, you want to buy a tiny fraction of my company at way more than it's worth? Sure. I can use an infusion of liquidity." What's bonkers is that if you sell 1% of your company for $20 billion, the talking heads then pretend the whole company is worth two trillion. Who would actually buy SpaceX for two trillion dollars if Elon wanted to sell it? But they call him a trillionaire. He's only worth the net present (discounted) value of all future earnings of his companies. Yes, that's a lot of money, but look at how much these companies make and do the math.
Comment Re:I was wondering when FOSS projects would notice (Score 1) 121
You are correct. What's kind of crazy is that a lot of the training data is probably GPL code. So if LLM-generated code retains GPL copyright, that's going to provide a lot of work for lawyering companies over the next few decades. And before any lawyers start cheering, there's no guarantee that the lawyering companies will need to hire any lawyers. LLMs can do most of their work already.
Comment Re:attack (Score 2) 66
Civilian infrastructure is a pretty squishy target in wartime, even without "cyber" attack vectors. If the bullets ever really start flying, expect everyone's standard of living to plummet. Look at the civilian infrastructure that's been hit in the Ukraine war, and now in the Iran war, even in neighboring countries. It's fragile and takes a long time to rebuild. We need to make it clear to our leaders that we want a large alliance network and open but fair trade agreements with other countries, because that's what has traditionally provided peace, growth, and prosperity. Countries don't generally bomb the people who buy all the shit their factories produce.
Comment Blame Canada (Score 4, Funny) 66
It must be the preliminary moves in a surprise strike by our mortal forever enemy, Canada. "Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia." - 1984
Comment Horrifying (Score 1) 224
Imagine what this would do to you mentally. You've never done what you were accused of, but you're found guilty anyway. All of your family probably suspects you too. Your neighbours and coworkers don't want anything to do with you. You're presumed guilty. One moment you're going through life smoothly and suddenly your life is turned upside down, and it's not an 'act of God'... it's just other people who erroneously decided to cast you out of society. It's a horror movie.
Comment Re:How old is the author ? (Score 1) 105
The point was simply that the "old days" of decades ago was based on a mutual trust, and that trust is gone. It works both ways. If employees leave immediately after training, we shouldn't expect companies to offer training.
Comment Re: How old is the author ? (Score 1) 105
Do you not see how that's leading to exactly the problem that the OP is complaining about? Decades ago there was an understanding that you could stay at a company for years and your loyalty would be rewarded. The OP was complaining that companies show now loyalty anymore. My point was that loyalty goes both ways. Your point is... that companies are stupid for offering something with the expectation that the employee might stick around? Ultimately this didn't bankrupt the company... we don't take risks we can't handle. It was only an illustration. I'm sorry it went over your head.
Comment Re:How old is the author ? (Score 4, Interesting) 105
Ok, sure. The days of staying with a company for your whole career and moving up from a job in the mail room to the executive level... that's been over for a long time. Companies won't invest in workers by investing in training. We're a small family-run business that prides itself on sticking with employees for the long term and we hired a new engineering grad a few years ago, paid for her to take a multi-month training course to get her certified, spent lots of time mentoring her, and a few months after that she gleefully announced she was leaving the company for a better opportunity out in the oil industry. She was surprised that we were anything but happy about it. She literally had no clue how much we'd already invested in her, and that hiring her hadn't come close to being a net gain yet. It goes both ways. Companies feel screwed over and aren't going to offer those perks anymore.
But there are still many, many, many more protections for employees than there are for influencers and gig workers. It's not even close. And I've done a bit of YouTube publishing just out of interest sake. It's a LOT of work and you're mostly just working for YouTube. And your viewers end up being super-demanding. They expect constant posting. And you live and die at the whim of YouTube, who can cut your revenue suddenly just by tweaking their algorithm. It's a brutal industry with long hours, lots of stress, and no security.
Comment Re:"proud maga" (Score 0) 229
Look, both 'sides' have been pushing identity politics, and it seems to escalate back and forth. Saying that one side does it but the other doesn't is disingenuous, and saying that it's OK for one side to do it because the other is worse isn't helping the problem. Some of us still remember when racism was wrong simply because it was illogical: the variation of people within a group is far larger than the difference in averages between groups, so it makes no sense to prejudice (literally pre-judge) someone based on their visible attributes. But that cuts both ways. "All men are this," or "all white people are that" displays just as much prejudice, and some small-minded people wanted to continue generalizing about other groups, so hence the rise of identity politics. Push back against all forms of identity politics, or stand by and watch it destroy your country.
Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta Warn Against 'Premature Restrictions' of Open-Weight Models 18
Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta, Palantir, and more than 20 other tech companies signed an open letter urging policymakers not to impose "premature restrictions" on open-weight AI models, warning that broad limits could "stifle competition or drive innovation overseas." CNBC reports: They wrote that open-weight models strengthen competition and ensure that the benefits of the technology are "broadly shared rather than concentrated in a few hands." "Relying solely on closed models is not inherently safe: they can be breached, misused, or fail in ways that outsiders cannot detect," the letter said. "And concentrating advanced AI capabilities behind a small number of closed models compounds that risk."
Elon Musk, who runs an AI business under his rocket company SpaceX, also amplified the letter on social media, writing that it has his "full support" in a post on X. SpaceX did not officially sign the letter. Greg Brockman, OpenAI's president, said Thursday that the company believes in broad access, and that he has not been involved in any conversations with the Trump administration about potentially banning Chinese open-weight models in the U.S.
"I think that, that fundamentally, AI and AI usage is something that is actually very important to democratize," Brockman told reporters during a briefing in New York City. "And so, for me, at a sort of deep level, I think that having more models, more usage, that is a good thing." OpenAI CEO Sam Altman addressed the letter in a post on X on Friday, writing that he wants the U.S. to win with both open-weight and proprietary models, and that he is "glad to see this."
[...] In the letter on Friday, the U.S. tech companies said that concerns about unlawful distillation should be addressed through "targeted legal and commercial frameworks" instead of with "sweeping restrictions on techniques that play an important role in AI innovation." "Our AI leadership will be judged not by one frontier AI model, but by whether the United States builds a strong, open ecosystem that diffuses into every sector," the letter said. "This is essential for creating opportunities for innovation and prosperity across the country." The letter follows a separate appeal signed by nearly 200 Silicon Valley companies, including Proton and Y Combinator, warning that restricting U.S. access to Chinese open-weight AI models could cripple the next generation of American startups. "American leadership requires two things: world-leading American open-weight models and continued access for U.S. builders to open models already available worldwide," the startup founders wrote. Instead of broad prohibitions, they argue the government should adopt targeted safeguards.
Of course, these signees "have an obvious economic stake in seeing open AI models flourish," notes TechCrunch. "Companies like Nvidia, Microsoft Azure, and other infrastructure providers have a vested interest in pushing for commoditized models: If models are interchangeable, people will buy more GPUs, rent more cloud capacity, and build more applications."
Elon Musk, who runs an AI business under his rocket company SpaceX, also amplified the letter on social media, writing that it has his "full support" in a post on X. SpaceX did not officially sign the letter. Greg Brockman, OpenAI's president, said Thursday that the company believes in broad access, and that he has not been involved in any conversations with the Trump administration about potentially banning Chinese open-weight models in the U.S.
"I think that, that fundamentally, AI and AI usage is something that is actually very important to democratize," Brockman told reporters during a briefing in New York City. "And so, for me, at a sort of deep level, I think that having more models, more usage, that is a good thing." OpenAI CEO Sam Altman addressed the letter in a post on X on Friday, writing that he wants the U.S. to win with both open-weight and proprietary models, and that he is "glad to see this."
[...] In the letter on Friday, the U.S. tech companies said that concerns about unlawful distillation should be addressed through "targeted legal and commercial frameworks" instead of with "sweeping restrictions on techniques that play an important role in AI innovation." "Our AI leadership will be judged not by one frontier AI model, but by whether the United States builds a strong, open ecosystem that diffuses into every sector," the letter said. "This is essential for creating opportunities for innovation and prosperity across the country." The letter follows a separate appeal signed by nearly 200 Silicon Valley companies, including Proton and Y Combinator, warning that restricting U.S. access to Chinese open-weight AI models could cripple the next generation of American startups. "American leadership requires two things: world-leading American open-weight models and continued access for U.S. builders to open models already available worldwide," the startup founders wrote. Instead of broad prohibitions, they argue the government should adopt targeted safeguards.
Of course, these signees "have an obvious economic stake in seeing open AI models flourish," notes TechCrunch. "Companies like Nvidia, Microsoft Azure, and other infrastructure providers have a vested interest in pushing for commoditized models: If models are interchangeable, people will buy more GPUs, rent more cloud capacity, and build more applications."
Comment Re:This should surprise nobody (Score 1) 108
This is obviously true, and the realization that AI was going to be the battleground for "truth" happened almost immediately. Even relatively smart people, if they go to Google and type in a query, will read off the AI-generated "summary" at the top as if it's the de-facto truth. I mean, they did this prior to AI as well, not taking the time to click into the articles. I find that AI summaries are even worse, as when I click on the supporting links, I rarely find the information that supposedly supports what it said. But if you argue with Google you just look like you're crazy.
The only way they're going to be able to monetize this technology to the masses, who won't pay a monthly subscription, is to use it for advertising. If you ask AI about the best vacuum cleaner, it's going to give you an answer that's manipulated by whatever vacuum company paid the most for promotions. Similarly, if you ask it a political question, the answer will be influenced by paid political pandering, and also by the whims of the organization that created the model. Grok's going to sing the praises of Elon Musk, and Gemini will sing the praises of Sundar Pichai.
This gets pretty scary when you consider the "ministry of truth" implications here. Sure, we'll have lots of different models available, and they'll be beholden mostly to various corporate interests, but you can already see where it's heading in authoritarian regimes like North Korea, China, Russia, etc. That's why all countries are racing for AI. It's a race to control the magical oracle machine that everyone thinks is the single source of truth.
Comment Free speech cuts both ways (Score 4, Insightful) 108
The same people who complain that it won't criticize this or that still want it lobotomized so it won't criticize their own beliefs.
Comment Re:OnePlus is a Chinese smartphone manufacturer (Score 2) 65
Well then this is definitely going to blow your mind... I'm not American and I don't live in the US.
Comment OnePlus is a Chinese smartphone manufacturer (Score 4, Informative) 65
If, like me, you didn't know who OnePlus was.
