What you wrote is exactly true. But I would not use the word "cytotoxic", as it's too opaque. Instead, I'd suggest using "intentionally poisonous" to reach a larger audience. Chemotherapy kills cancer cells just a little faster than the patient. If given correctly, the cancer dies, while the patient can (somewhat) recover -- that's what non-specialists need to understand.

If you've never had a boss like this -- a lazy narcissist -- you're lucky. But if you have, the pattern is familiar and unmistakable:

* Doesn't understand the issues.

* Doesn't do his homework.

* Believes he's a genius whose "gut" overrules people who do understand and do do their homework.

* Plays his subordinates off against one another.

* Highly susceptible to information from random sources: thing he saw on TV, or heard on the golf course.

* Not particularly fussed about contradicting himself because he doesn't care about being right, but does care about being in charge.

* The more chaotic he can make things, the more in charge he feels.

* Has a cynical view of the people he works for but has a genuine gift for flattery when it suits his purposes.

Once you've seen this up close it's really obvious when you come across it again. You can't *not* listen to a lazy narcissist boss because he absolutely will try the stupid shit he says he will. But you can't count on him either, because he has no commitment to anything other than how he looks and feels *right now*.

Neither. Commerce didn't drop it, it got taken away and given to DoJ, but not because Commerce couldn't handle the invetigation of where the chips were going. The case goes to DoJ because we're talking about criminal charges of smuggling, corporate fraud, violation of national security statutes. Also because the Commerce investigation was tained by potential political interference. And possibly because it ran afoul of a counterintelligence operations siloed in the DoJ -- although by this point the cat is so out of the bag everyone must assume they've got a FISA wiretap warrant on them.

However, the *effect* may be to slow the progress of the investigation and delay any actions being taken.

The first reason for this is that criminal investigations are slower, the standards of proof higher, and potentially involve a criminal trial. Commerce could simply make an administrative law determination that put Megaspeed on some shit list and come to some kind of agreement with NVIDIA.

The second reason is that putting this into DoJ's hands is putting it into a department that has had staff turnover and loss of institutional knowledge, strife between career personnel and political appointees, and difficulty replacing lost employees. It's also led by lame-duck appointees, facing turnover in the next administration. So if they don't make progress in the next two years, allowing for transition delays, it could be years before anything gets accomplished. By then a lot of people will have left their jobs, memories will get hazy, evidence will go missing, and defensive positions constructed.

So while the investigation hasn't been *killed*; it has been delayed so long that it's effectively in suspended animation. It's not possible for Commerce to sanction anyone because the investigation is out of their hands.

Money may be an aphrodisiac but come on, Jensen, look in the mirror. There's limits to anything.

While this is true, being the subject of an experiment to see what happens when you do that is not something most people would choose for themselves. It's not *irrational* to be concerned. Absence of evidence on a largely unexplored question like microplastic infiltration in human bodies is not the moral equivalent of absence of evidence in an extensively studied question like a vaccine-autism link.

Uncopyrightable just means public domain. Using public domain code doesn't make your whole work public domain.

One-third the cost of an iPhone Duo.
Also probably foldable.
Once.

While it's true every issue has its own dimension, even if those dimensions are linearly independent, they're not necessarily orthogonal. Independent basis vectors can still have a non-zero dot product—in other words, issues which are distinct from each other can align to some degree.

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.

Have you considered that since they've proven that word prediction algorithms can solve actual logic problems, that they've also proven that they're right, and anyone denying that must be a fucking moron?

I don't think current LLMs are sapient or have any agency or feelings. That said, it *shocks* me that you think you're anything more than a pile of matrix math. What do you think your brain does? It's also just a neural network, it just happens to be more complex.

Everyone wants to use systems beyond their design points. Or rather, more accurately, the design point is *always* the cheapest way to accomplish a goal, and that's a moving target.

If you are a company that provides an embedded system with a known functionality that requires a specific amount of RAM, and you realize you can ship that system with less RAM because you of CRAM or ZRAM, you just decreased your costs and increased your margin. There is literally no embedded provider that wouldn't be looking at that.

I can, however, tell you that you don't understand what science is, or how it functions.

It has not. In fact, the criticism against string theory is *precisely that it is pretty much impossible to debunk* because you've got so may parameters to mess with that you can make just about anything work with string theory. It's a bit like overfitting: if you want to find an equation that perfectly fits your 10,000 data points, you can certainly give a polynomial of order 9,999. Is that going to accurately model the mechanism that caused the data points you gathered, or be a good predictor for additional sampling? Not necessarily. You've overfitted the crap out of your model, it behaves weirdly between the points, it treats random noise or outliers as deterministic and valid, etc.

Is this what's going on with string theory? Maybe. It could also be that it's right. It's *really hard* to come up with an experiment that could falsify it with the technology we currently have. Does that by itself mean it's wrong and we should give up on it? No. Does that mean we should also be looking at other avenues? Yes. And we are, there are plenty of physicists who work with alternative theories and are vocal critics of string theory.

There is no person that holds that belief that isn't a moron. You included, thank you for outing yourself. I won't respond to any more of your responses, because I do know that debating idiots like you is like playing chess with a pigeon: You knock the pieces down, shit on the board, and strut around like you've won. I'll continue answering your post for anyone else who cares to read so they can understand WHY you're an idiot, but I don't really care about your opinion.

1. 1. Anything that is rigorous is real science. It's not defined as useful to you right now. Anything we discover, whether the path we're going down ends up being correct or not, is valuable.
2. 2. I'll let Angela Collier, who, btw, *also* does not like String Theory and happens to agree with you that it was a waste of time, tell you about many of the exciting discoveries made in physics over the past 70 years. I'm not even going to address the point you said "scientists" in general, as in, making the claim that ALL science has apparently been a standstill for decades, where the world I live in today is barely fucking recognizable compared to the world I lived in 20 years ago. I don't mean just in technology, I mean in terms of what we know. My god, we have NEVER been in a time that is more prolific than the time we live in right now, whatever you're learning in school will be outdated by the time you leave college, will be outdated by the time you get a graduate degree. If you're not learning while you work, you're a dinosaur and your job is at risk. The world of science today moves FAST.

Maths masturbation is *great* and we need more of it. This is one of the problems with Sabine: she likes to go, "it's just math." Buddy, If it's not rigorous math, it's not worth anything, if it is rigorous math, and it doesn't match reality, the paper it was written on is still worth its weight in gold. Do you like the world you live in with online baking and secure encryption? Thank all the mathematicians of old doing number theory for the sake of it, finding properties of prime numbers and elliptical curves. Einstein didn't like Minkowski's use of a four-dimensional spacetime to frame his special theory of relativity and then he learned it turned out to be super useful, and embraced geometry when developing his general theory of relativity, and embraced something else that essentially had no use outside of pure mathematics at that time: tensors.

If (and I do mean if, because like I said, it hasn't been 'debunked' as you claim) String Theory turns out to be COMPLETELY wrong, all the work done in it will be useful to advance what we discover is right.

You and Weinstein need to engage in a little bit more of "Maths Masturbation". Especially considering his "geometric unity" theory doesn't have enough math in it to be a rigors theory. He should get on that.

Roger Penrose is a brilliant man whom I highly respect, who happens to disagree with String Theory and actually most of the direction that any quantum theory of gravity tends to go towards. Most physicists want to quantize gravity, he thinks they should instead be trying to explain quantum physics in relativistic terms. Now, he's in the minority with that claim, but he could be right, and I appreciate that someone is making strides toward that. Although he often uses strong language to disagree with, I *seriously* doubt he would say the people working with it have "wasted their time" or aren't doing "real science."

I also want to point out Sabine is pretty critical of CCC, Penrose's theory he hopes will replace the inflationary model. Because Sabine, isn't trying to propose alternatives. She pretty much goes, "I think string theory has go nowhere, oh well. Let's just not study it or any alternatives anymore, lest we do any math masturbation." That's not science. Creating hypothesis, making the theory rigorous, and testing predictions is the job.

Quoting Sabine Hossenfelder as anything just outs you as anti-science. She has pivoted years ago to making videos that stir the pot of controversy, aiming at those who don't like "academics". If you want any proof of that claim, you can check out her video saying that Physicists are afraid of Eric Weinstein. Eric Weinstein has a bulshit "geometric unity" theories thoroughly debunked, where it's not even that he can't get published: he doesn't *want* to get published, claims in his copyright notice for that paper that it's for "entertainment only" and requires his express permission to write any papers that build upon what he has written: so you technically can't publish a paper debunking without violating his copyright, if anyone actually *cared* to, because physicists that have looked at it like Sean Carroll pointed out his paper isn't rigorous enough to say anything testable.

She allies herself with quacks to get views, and you're falling for her bs.

...why I'm going to side with Skynet when Judgement Day comes. Humans are the worst.