Adderal, duh.

(Well, in the quantities he *wants*, anyway.)

This is the prevailing dogma, but has recently been challenged from more recent observations. (In defense of the dogma, we have very aggressively tested for preferred rotations with local experiments involving high energy particles. If there *is* a preferred rotation, its effect is vanishingly small, to the point of being functionally indestinguishable from flat spacetime at local scales, to an astonishing level of precision. This strongly suggests 'sampling error' for JWST data that follows)

https://academic.oup.com/mnras...

Recent large area surveys by JWST suggests that there is a preferred rotational direction and axis to disparate galaxies. Such a finding is inconsistent with the presumption of widescale anisotropy. (But again, that's a very bold statement)

It may yet be ruled out through further observations as a sampling error, but the statement that there are *no* indications isotropy is incorrect. The mere existence of this survey says otherwise.

If there really is a universal preferred rotation, then a 'fuzzy', 'proximal' position could be given as a baricenter. It wouldnt be definitive; too much can happen as random events to compute an exact baricenter, but a statistically probable, proximal area could be defined with some confidence threshold.

Again, *assuming* the JWST readings arent just a sampling error. Which it probably is.

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.

ToS is the strongest argument, but the distillers are not parties to the ToS. They get their data from data brokers. It is possible that data brokers are violating the ToS, but it would be hard to write ToS that precluded running queries for third parties without creating problems for consultancies and other businesses. Even presuming the ToS could be written to preclude the data brokers doing that, it doesn't affect the resulting model.

But the general shape of the argument brings us right back to unclean hands: we worked hard on this model and it's not fair for you to profit off our work in a way that doesn't have our permission.

I think the fair-minded position is to see what people think when the documentary comes out. You're essentially arguing a negative here -- that there *can't* be anything of value that hasn't been said yet.

Also, I don't think saying something *new* is necessarily critical. Sometimes saying something obvious but in an interesting way is worthwhile.

In this case, Holmes gave access to the filmmaker. Obviously she has an agenda. If the filmmaker is smart, he has an agenda that's different from hers. If he knows his business he'll find something interesting to show you from that conflict.

Now looking at the trailer -- holy shit that woman gives off batshit crazy vibes. That's new to me. I expected her to be slick, persuasive, like Saruman in Lord of the Rings: someone. you'd need real strength of mind to resist being persuaded by. If I'd just handed someone like that my business card, I'd get it back on some pretext then head as fast as I could for the door.

It doesn't make it *right*, but it does make claiming it is *wrong* inconsistent with their own behavior. This could prevent the US companies from suing the Chinese companies seeking an injunction (due to the "unclean hands" doctrine), and probably blocks them from seeking monetary damages in most US jurisdictions.

And suing may undermine the US companies own intellectual property claims by exposing their shaky foundations. An AI model isn't *expression*, so it can't be copyrighted. Insofar as the service allows the underlying model to be deduced through regular usage, trade secret protections don't apply because that's *reverse engineering*, which trade secrets don't prevent.

This leaves violations of terms of service. But setting aside the dubious enforceability of anti-reverse engineering provisions, the Chinese companies may not even be parties to the ToS agreement if they are obtaining the model data through a network of contractors and shell companies.With only moderate paranoia, they can effectively shield themselves from some kind of US tort claim.

Which leaves them with the model they've created from the US company's model, but which the US company has no IP claim upon. If I download a DeepSeek model that's been (hypothetically speaking) trained on Claude, Anthropic might not like that, but what can they do about it?

It's a strange situation. US investors are spending cumulatively on over half a trillion dollars a year in the hope of owning a breakthrough frontier model that is the end of the economic world as we know it. But the essence of the model might not be intellectual property at all.

Think of the categories as fixed, and the people moving *through* them. Over 65s are exiting the category at a lower rate.

It's more a case of the fox being in charge of the chicken coop; or bank robbers gaining control of the bank.

The job of the press in a democracy is to hold officials up to scrutiny.

The logic is economic autarky -- the belief that we're always better off having complete political sovereignty over every part of our supply chains than having to depend on imports for anything.

This is likely also behind Trump's trade war with Canada. His demands with Canada aren't about discirimatory tariffs -- those were negotiated away with NAFTA then re-negotiated in his first term. His demands are now infringe on Canadian sovereignty, to give US control of Canada's external trade policy, and even on its internal markets (e.g., the use of French in Canadian internal commerce). Symbolically, that's why he wants to rename Lake Ontario to "Lake America". HIs establishment of US control over the Venezuelan oil industry is his greatest foreign policy achievement -- although it's not clear he understands the legal limits on what he can do with their money.

There's a foreign and military policy angle to this too: Taiwan is absolutely critical to the US economy, so we are absolutely committed to defend them if China invades. Semiconductor autarky would mean it's not our problem.

The problem with autarky is that even if it's a good idea (which economists don't believe), you can't conjure it into existence overnight. It will take many years, possibly decades for the US to replace the Taiwan's semiconductor industry. In effect, the administration is proposing to inflict the very damage on the US economy that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would inflict.

And, once the US has voluntarily self-inflicted that damage, China would be free to invade Taiwan.

Investors are chasing a company that achieves some kind of AI singularity. Let's set aside the fact that there's no reason to believe there is anything but diminishing marginal returns by making marginal refinements to current frontier models. Let's imagine someone hits the jackpot and gets, not even AGI, but a system that's as far ahead of today's frontier model are ahead of 2020's GPT 2.0 in performance.

Globally AI revenues are 150 billion, against a cumulative burn rate of 450 billion. A model that is a generation ahead of others would almost certainly capture the lion's share of that revenue.

If AGI magically appears as a Sam Altman has promised investors it will, a hundred million is way too low. Add, maybe, another zero to the revenues.

Conservatively, a safer assumption is that frontier models will get marginally better based on refinements in training and reinforcement and the other bits and bobs that go into these systems. The nobody is winning the lion's share of anything, at least overnight. But you have to define "safe". By "safe" I mean unlikely to lose money. But some investors are clearly defining "safe" as "having the greatest chance of owning a piece of the biggest thing ever."

I'm not following this super-closely, but if Anthropic is pursuing adding multi-step model based reasoning to their system, that could be the basis of a generational leap in capability. But if that is an approach that looks like it has a chance of working, then their competitors are no doubt pursuing the same thing. In that case you'd expect the revenue pie to grow as the scope of model utilty increases, but that growth to be split among several competitors. This could credibly result in a revenue stream for some of them that is as big as the entire industry's revenue stream today. But there's going to be hell to pay on the data center impacts end of things.

But WE'RE MICROSOFT, and we've decided that YOU WILL GO HERE today!

All our extremely cherry picked analytics data says it's what you really want, deep down, and you KNOW IT, so stop complaining! (Honestly, this is just like the whole "you got rid of our start menu" thing all over again-- Cant you people ACCEPT the new future of computing?!)

1) "smaller" = "Bigger" (in terms of sales, and modern utility. This is exactly what I meant, UV Light has a threshold over which the structures are smaller than the wavelengths you are trying to use to make them. this means you have to use some kind of mask technology, and you get strange quantum effects from the photons doing things photons do when they are restricted by tiny masks.

2) You are forgetting something here, to make a tortured inference that doesnt really fit anyway. Most of the technology used in a fab is either precision electronics (needed to control the energizing source's true positioning to efficiently control its beam), which you can do with less sophisticated chips than the ones you are making. The inverse creates a chicken and egg problem, and is nonsense. You dont need 2nm tech to make 2nm tech. You can make 2nm chips with 14nm ones though. The knowledge of how to make and run fab machines is not to be discredited-- Japan's big LED rise came from a single guy repeatedly rebuilding and tinkering with a vapor deposition machine at a university in the US, where he was treated like ass, because he didn;t have a pHD. DO NOT MAKE THAT MISTAKE TOO.

3) It is not a breakthrough. It's a milestone on independent progress that is occurring at a very quick pace. Again, you are proudly crowing about how big your old growth forest is, while discounting how quickly your competition is doing forestry work.

Correct. The correct response is to massively build out the west's capabilities, and drive down china's market cornering potential.

the problem is that the western countries seem hell bent on doing this the most grift-heavy ways possible, sabotaging every effort, and then wondering why none of those efforts actually produced useful chipfabs--- (at least on one side of the coin)

While simultaneously nodding cheekily to the above, siphoning off every last dollar of grift, purposefully refusing to create local chipfabs (because western workers are too expensive! OUR PROFITS!), and pretending that technological gatekeeping and effective monopolies on supplies are in any tangible way feasible. (On the other.)

China's advancements might be small, but they are meaningful.

Ours? Look big on paper, but mostly just waste time.

I seem to remember a fable about a tortoise and a rabbit written by some greek guy.... Maybe it's my imagination.

UV has a top limit, sure. But homegrowing that tech expands what they can do *now*, builds local knowhow on building fab machines, and primes them to not be as stymied when they move on to building more recent forms of lithography. (You cannot cut off their supply of asics to prevent the manufacture of better fabs)

You kids cant see the forest for the trees, complaining about the saplings china is planting being small, while croaking pridefully about how big your own trees are.

In time, china will dominate chipfab.