Yeah but AI enables incompetent people. I feel like having to work on something would make you learn enough not to fuck up too bad, generally. But with AI you don't need to learn or research, you can just ask chatGPT to do whatever and call it a day, if you're careless enough
Farmers are often depicted as a profession done by poor people, the reality in the US is that the poor people got bought out decades ago, most farmers are actually gigantic land owners and often millionaires
Except the US economy is already dead, and only AI is keeping it "alive". If AI companies die, the US economy enters a true recession, and rich people would lose a lot of money
China literally just put out an open weight model that verifiably beats the unverified Mythos claims in some scenarios; the reality is that they most likely want the US to "win" the AI race (which they cant, closed models will always be beat by open weight, which is what China is doing)
They're already on shaky finances, having an export ban would just pop the bubble sooner (and what remains of the US economy along with it)
They are scaling up but as with other things they will most likely scale to their inner market first, and then I doubt they'll subsidize a price depreciation to help westerners when they can get the profits for themselves
Well yes, megacorps have unlimited budget for AI datacenters, that's my point; consumer facing offerings don't, such as cloud gaming, and they're competing for the same price-gouged resource ("competing" is too generous tbh, consumer facing companies are getting curb stomped)
Well no, the memory price increase is specifically here to price gouge AI datacenters. If you're running a non-AI datacenter, and if you're targeting consumers, like with remote desktop gaming, you have AI-like costs (literally, since servers GPUs are gaming GPUs), but without the enterprise customers. Oh and you also need the best bandwidth possible, because a few added milliseconds might make the "remote" use unbearable, which is an added cost datacenters don't have to deal with on the same terms.
On one hand yes, on the other I'm sure we'd all have dismissed people talking about a network of pedophilia linking every important statesperson and billionaires, before all the Epstein stuff came out
The split of semiprecious vs precious is essentially 18th century marketing BS, it's not relevant nowadays, even to jewelers.
Some of the most expensive stones aren't even part of the "precious" stones because they were discovered recently, and since the term is obsolete even to jewelers there's no one to push the term on those new gems, like Alexandrite (which is more expensive than diamond)
Not really, because when an employee fails their task it's the employee's responsibility, and if it's catastrophic enough it can lead to firings or lawsuits. But as soon as it's a chatbot, the liability fully rests on the company. How long will insurance protect those companies too?
The issue is that those bots are worse in completely unpredictable ways. Like when some airline passengers were given incorrect information which led to the airline being sued and having to pay the made up offer as well as damages & tribunal fees. The bots might be unhelpful, but to the disservice of the company's financials
It wasn't really Singapore-based; the Chinese company relocated to Singapore to circumvent the Chinese regulations on sales to the US, that's why they put a stop to it
Yeah but AI enables incompetent people. I feel like having to work on something would make you learn enough not to fuck up too bad, generally. But with AI you don't need to learn or research, you can just ask chatGPT to do whatever and call it a day, if you're careless enough