It is plausible we're in a bubble. And there's some evidence for it. That companies can just add the words "AI" to something to get investment is a serious sign. But the revenue situation, while weird, is not by itself definitive. Anthropic even made a profit in Q2 this year https://aitoolsrecap.com/Blog/anthropic-first-profit-2026-revenue-breakdown . Now, there's enough weird accounting going on, and circularity within the various companies, that interpreting that as a definite, genuine profit is something I'd be hesitant to do, but from all the public information it does look genuine.

There are two, related issues. First, if a "bubble" keeps going on for long enough, it stops being a bubble because society just reorganizes around it. For example, there's a decent argument that the industry was in a bubble since the 1930s (or even earlier) but that we reorganized cities and infrastructure to support it. And then when there was finally, almost a hundred years later, a danger that that bubble was going to pop, as it really had deserved to decades before, we had the auto-bailtouts (which were not just in the US, but also included the UK, Russia, France, Germany, Italy and others). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932010_automotive_industry_crisis. There's a related saying which generally comes up in the context of people thinking of short-selling: "Markets can be irrational longer than you can be solvent." Second, even when a bubble does burst, the tech itself may still grow or be highly useful. When the train bubble burst in 1873, it was devastating, but by most major metrics of the industry (amount of track laid down, number of stations, estimated number of people-miles traveled per year) numbers barely dipped or kept going up. Similarly, when the dot-com bubble burst some specific things did get really damaged (with some early fiber optic being just abandoned) but by and large, the internet continued to grow to the point where it ended up more ubiquitous than even boosters in the late 1990s would have predicted. So a bubble bursting doesn't mean that LLM based AI is goes away.

n general, when there's an optimization process involved where one is minimizing stress or something else, hexagons often show up. In fact, hexagons are more often in nature than square patterns. One nice example is Giant's Causeway which has large hexagonal basalt columns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant's_Causeway (although a few columns have seven or eight sides). But neat to see another example, on another world no less. (We have on big hexagon on Saturn already.)

Wait, what do you mean that's wrong?

Did not know that. Thanks. But fighting online piracy was only the pretext; the real goal was the usual expansion of government (and thus their) power.

How much of that is related to GOG's reputation for being selective about what games and genres they accept? I get the impression that GOG is a bit more "curated" than some other PC game stores. The curators don't really want visual novels (a style of menu-driven adventure game). And apart from new releases by CD Projekt (which owned GOG before the end of 2025), I suspect that GOG seeks to poach "catalog" games that have already been successful on the competing store Steam as opposed to having a game at day one.

Sources include GOG forums (thread; thread)

That's really not what's going on here.

What's going on is exactly what they're saying. OpenAI didn't realize their AI hacked HuggingFace until HuggingFace told them. That sparked a broad investigation in both Anthropic and OpanAI, scouring their logs to see if there were other cases, and they're finding a lot of them, and doing the responsible thing by disclosing.

Both companies are really worried.

Having an out-of-control AI is an anti-selling point, not a selling point.

I am an American, have been for all of my 57 years. I'm actually a certified pistol, rifle and shotgun instructor, a certified range safety officer, and a concealed carry instructor. And while I wouldn't recommend it, it's not at all hard to get away with shooting outside of one of those situations.

Also, it was a joke.

Those illegal narcotics are physically in New York right now. Are the internet servers?

Use of "digital" meaning purchasing a download appears to have originated in "digital phonorecord delivery", a term of art in a United States copyright law.

Ya, those dumb Iranians would NEVER have thought of this idea by themselves.

I don't think that is completely accurate. My understanding was that winner-take-all systems were the (very slight) minority. Of course I can't easily find any references, because web search sucks these days. Here is data at least showing that a lot of places do some sort of proportional system:

https://www.fairvote.ca/how-de...

Of course, that doesn't really impact the larger point that if enough of our stupid neighbours decide on something, or are tricked into thinking something, we are totally screwed.

Sorry you feel that way, but it's a reasonable take on reality. There are two types of situations: Situations where you want to learn about X and situations where you need to know the answer to some very specific, but narrow question about X. For the second question, giant, ad-laden websites where the answer is buried in a pile of unrelated information are basically a disservice. You're paying for the information not just by watching their ads, but by wading through all the other crap.

In an ideal universe, there would be some sort of micropayment system, where websites earned money just from people visiting, and it came out of a fund paid into by ISPs, and the amount paid would be proportional to how many sites the Internet users of the world hit that day, and it would have some way of avoiding payment to link farms and other similar garbage content. And this would be an international system, and it would be designed in a way that somehow perfectly preserved privacy while maintaining auditability. I have no idea what that would look like, of course.

In the absence of such a scheme, though, there will always be a tug of war for power between content creators and browser/search companies, because the latter are trying to do what is best for the user in the short term, and the former are trying to get paid to protect what is best for the user in the long term. And I'm really not sure how to solve that problematic power dynamic, except by suggesting that perhaps that tug of war might actually be the solution, because it means neither side has too much power and control.

Apparently not, or at least the web version refused when I asked.

I assume there was some form of contract. Generally speaking, any time you send somebody unsolicited copyrighted material, you can expect it to get summarily thrown in the trash, so whomever you sent it to can't fall for the old "you stole my idea" bugaboo.

VFX studios are already doing this for their production pipelines. The processing happens in a data center; all the artists see is essentially a terminal window. Nobody can "walk off" with anything.