If I can't legally buy a particular piece of IP that was once available for consumer purchase, I should be legally allowed to procure a copy from any available source.

Why is the company allowed to claim any damages related to a product that they refuse to sell or otherwise distribute?

If you're willing to hire and fire junior developers, this level of performance is already within your risk envelope. If a project doesn't have the time or processes to catch basic errors, it's only getting senior staff assigned to it.

In 10 years, the AI model will be better, and it'll probably be the same price or less due to competition.

In contrast, the junior developers will also get better, but they'll double, triple, or even quadruple in price as they improve.

And, of course, the end goal is to replace most of the senior developers as well. Maybe it'll never replace all of them, but any number would be an incremental improvement that represents a significant savings.

They're bragging that you can switch between AI models freely when you're using their hardware. The model is replaceable and therefore fungible because of the hardware capabilities that they provide.

Depending on how much the industry and investors want to chase a flavor-of-the-month, that capability could be very appealing.

My employer doesn't operate in this space, so I don't know if that's a major selling point. But it never hurts to tout every advantage.

I call this approach the good ol' "this house will keep us warm as it burns down around us."

The keen vision and planning of corporate officers cannot be overstated.

Blessed be the shareholders.

They want everyone to use their AI tools.

Certain government, health care, and financial organizations are legally restricted from sharing data. Having worked in such a place before, they'll blanket ban AI rather than risk the unauthorized transmission of protected data. This functionality offers an alternative that they can accept.

If Microsoft wants their AI features to be adopted widely, they basically had no choice but to implement a local model. The fact that it's cheaper to use the customer's electricity is probably meaningless to them; they want to capture the userbase.

People who want to use AI are already doing it. They will use the AI that meets their needs the best.

For casual users, that's GPT, often ChatGPT, because it's ubiquitous. They can access it anywhere and get the same capabilities. That's what they care about: ease of use, ease of access, and consistency.

It's the same reason people still prefer Windows on the desktop. Except this time, Microsoft didn't get there first. So now they're the latecomer or the afterthought, and they don't like it. Too bad; innovate faster next time instead of jumping on a bandwagon.

Let's put idiots in charge of formulating medical guidance.

We'll have the greatest measles epidemic in the world if we stay the course.

Average consumption is ~250mg annually. That's half of one tablet, which makes it 1/4 of a regular dose, and it's not entirely clear how much is retained and what the conversion ratio is. I wouldn't be surprised if other byproducts were more dangerous.

You're allowed to take 8 paracetamol tablets per day, which means it's safe to purge 16 YEARS worth of microplastics per day, assuming a 1:1 ratio of plastic to paracetamol and no other side effects.

Unless you convert an entire lifetime of microplastics in a day or two, the risk of overdose is essentially zero.

It is a meaningful distiction.

It doesn't apply to terrestrial telescopes, of which there are many.

It doesn't apply to spy satellites, geomapping equipment, and the like, which also have telescopes but are designed to observe the Earth.

So we have a distinct group of items with materially significant differences in properties from the rest. And the definition does need to be available online with citations because even NatGeo will either prefer layman's terms or screw it up.

Innovation by cutting corners and ignoring safety standards... isn't actually innovation at all. It's just greed and externalizing risk.

For once, management paid the price themselves instead of their employees.

You're missing the point.

When you're analyzing a market or demographic segment, you can't make a sales pitch for a particular company or product. You don't care about the individual products. It's a bigger question about how the groups, classes, or properties interact and the outcomes of that interaction.

In this particular case, I have questions about the "larger employment". Is it domestic or foreign employment, and how do those jobs compare to the median wages locally?

If that employment is larger domestically and offering equivalent wages, then the native-immigrant is objectively improving the economy of the host country. On the other hand, if the employment is largely foreign or offers subpar compensation, then there is little benefit to the host nation.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to the full paper, so I can't see if it addresses the issues that matter to the working class. The headline/conclusion only matters to professional investors.