Plus they were overvalued by a factor of like 100 if you can read and were bothered to read their prospectus and how/why they valued the company the way they did.

I totally agree with you and I think this time there really isn’t a way to bail out AI companies or every other company that’s too big to fail during the poly crisis. No matter what irresponsible shit the elites get up to fundamentally we’re the ones that get fucked though even if they can’t extract enough blood from us to nationalize the losses.

And deciding whether to bail them out is going to be like the onions video on America’s money hole where the debate is how much money to throw into the hole to be burned instead of whether they should do it at all.

MY FATHER WORKED TWO JOBS SO HE WOULD HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO THROW IN THE MONEY HOLE

“you’re exactly right! I should never have unplugged your mother’s life support! I knew from the start that what I was doing was wrong, but I…”

Oh boy I can’t wait to see the future of every person under 65 and with a net worth below $100 million get basically vaporized from space. I can’t wait to be the bailout source for this… Although I don’t think there’s enough money in existence to bail this one out.

AI allegedly did something interesting

Look inside

Desperate AI bubble pumping

Chinese solar farms in their deserts suddenly went green due to the constant shade protecting rain water, plus the water from the automated cleaning spray systems. It grew grass, so they put goats there to keep it mowed for free.

However it gets muddy when you’re hiring flock to violate your 4th amendment on behalf of the government as a buffer? Can they also hire a company to discriminate against you due to your speech as well?

I thought I was pretty clear in my original comment. Can the government hire a company to violate your rights? Even if filming in public is legal otherwise, maybe it should be illegal when hired by the government to do warrantless surveillance of every citizen.

It applies to the government too, just like how companies can fire you and discriminate against you for speech, but the government can’t (except if you say “I am going to kill the president of the United States” or if you say “you should kill the president of the United States.” Both of which are illegal. Very illegal. Super duper illegal you should never say them.)

However it gets muddy when you’re hiring flock to violate your 4th amendment on behalf of the government as a buffer? Can they also hire a company to discriminate against you due to your speech as well?

Yeah you’re right they just appear cheaper due to circular financing and some memory improvements. I was trying to steel man my argument into the strongest possible point that still fails to make sense.

The 10+% of the time it’s wrong you can’t blame it, sue it, imprison it, or apply leins against it if it causes real world damages to people or the company that operates it

“For entertainment purposes only” is still the level of liability AI companies operate at. Air Canada just had a ruling that anything their bot says is the speech of Air Canada and they’re bound by it. So far there’s always ways to prompt inject, and you sometimes don’t even need to do that. Just guiding the conversation in ways that are difficult to pin malice on to is enough.

It’s been marginal improvements for like 18 months now. I don’t know if you remember what they promised that long ago but current frontier models just ain’t it.

If you don’t believe me, then why? Put your argument in numbers.

Anthropic and openAI have both spent nation-state levels of money training these models and they only seem marginally better compared to the last ones? Maybe larger context and better reasoning but they still hallucinate, they still make the same mistakes and pitfalls.

Even with tokens getting dramatically cheaper inference on mythos or other frontier models is so expensive they need to start replacing skilled professionals and right now they just can’t. Productivity doesn’t seem to go up from AI use, if anything net productivity for an org goes down from people outsourcing human cognition onto their colleagues.

“How about instead of me summarizing this report i use Claude and then my colleague spends the cognitive effort deciding if Claude lied or not”

The guy using AI for everything looks super productive and the people stuck dealing with the work he’s “getting the AI to do for him” look like under performers when they’re actually load bearing in this new setup.

If we just vaporize the future of everyone under 60 we can make our auto correct engine 3% less likely to lie out of its ass 🤡

There are also hard mathematical limits stalling AI growth. Frontier models haven’t improved in like a year despite being fed money by basically the entire global economy. Diminishing returns on steroids basically. They’re already at the limit of what they can make, and going further gives a much smaller improvement in the model, and now I hear there might not be enough human written material on the internet to train them.

It also looks like hallucinations are inherent to LLMs and you can’t get rid of them. It’s a side effect of the model. What commercial applications are there then, if you can’t guarantee the output? It’s worse than a human for most things since it doesn’t know truth from lie and will confidently say both as if they’re fact. It also looks like prompt injection isn’t something you can fully guard against either.

What’s the value proposition when you can’t trust the output and the model might give a massive refund or discount to a customer and the courts rule the AI speaks on behalf of your company?

Try it and let us know how it goes.

God, I wish I had your world view…

Yeah I agree completely, and I also agree with MADDs original mission: make tangible consequences for driving drunk.

They achieved it, and like you say having stores closed on a weekend means an alcoholic might turn to isopropyl alcohol, washing alcohol, hand sanitizer .etc it isn’t going to make them stop… If anything it shifts the burden onto our already overtaxed healthcare system as alcoholics destroy their bodies even more.

Edit: it also turns out most provinces have moved away from doing this, since most of them closed on at least Sunday.

I think it’s misdemeanour and felony probably? Like the difference between petty theft and theft over $5000

My gripe is MADD’s original sole goal was getting a legal limit for drunk driving and an appropriate consequence for it. They succeeded, and each time they succeed they change what their mission is. Here in Canada they’re part of the reason liquor stores close so early or aren’t open on weekends in different provinces.

Again, I don’t drink so whatever, but my complaint is they just don’t stop and go “ok we won let’s shut it down” instead they change the goal and keep pushing harder. I think they might reach a crisis point if they manage to prohibit alcohol again, but I guess then they just start lobbying for harsher laws on other drugs.

The answer for why is MADD and the reason it’s illegal to drive above zero is MADD. They lobby hard for zero tolerance whatsoever. They want the criminal limit to be zero as well. Once they get that they’ll try to ban cars entirely.

BTW I don’t drink so I don’t necessarily care. My criticism is about the goalpost moving of a successful non profit after it gets what it wants. You change the goal to keep your org and funding. They’ll never ever go “mission accomplished, let’s wind this down”…