Before the Dot Com era, startups that succeeded transitioned from growth stocks in to blue chips. They settle down, focus on becoming more efficient at executing what is now proven business mode.

But modern tech stocks are expected to act like growth stocks *forever*. When they grow to their natural potential, they begin to turn to dubious practices to generate the next tranche of growth. They undermine their services in order to squeeze a bit more revenue out of them. Or they let their successful business stagnate while the rock star founder beguiles stockholders with visions of transforming into a block chain or AI company.

Back in the early 2000s, when Amazon first transitioned from being a book store to an everything store, and they just introduced Prime membership, you used the site and thought "this thing is great." Nobody thinks that anymore; it's slower, more opaque and less reliable, cluttered with knockoffs, sponsored results, and astroturf reviews. Fake sales events with phony markdowns? Who is surprised?

....that natural stupidity is even more dangerous than artificial intelligence.

I don't know anything about comics, but according to Wikipedia (IDW):

Wikipedia also links to IDW Publishing States They Will Definitely Be Around For Another Year

So, it doesn't seem that rosy?

There's no doubt that AI is developing into a useful tool -- for people who understand its limitations and how long it is going to take to work the bugs out. But people have a long track record of getting burned by not understanding the gap between promise and delivery and, in retrospect, missing the point.

I think we should take a lesson from the history of the dot com boom and following bust. A lot of people got burned by their foolish enthusiasm, but in the end the promise was delivered, and then some. People just got the timescale for delivering profits wrong, and in any case their plans for getting there were remarkably unimaginative, e.g., take a bricks and mortar business like pet supplies and do exactly that on the Internet. They by in large completely missed all the *new* ways of making money ubiquitous global network access created.

I think in the case of AI, everybody knows a crash is coming. In fact they're planning on it. Nobody expects there to be hundreds or even dozens of major competitors in twenty years. They expect there to be one winner, an Amazon-level giant, with maybe a handful of also-rans subsisting off the big winner's scraps; tolerated because they at least in theory provide a legal shield to anti-trust actions.

And in this winner-take-all scenario, they're hoping to be Jeff Bezos -- only far, far more so. Bezos owns about 40% of online retail transactions. If AI delivers on its commercial promise, being the Jeff Bezos of *that* will be like owning 40% of the labor market. Assuming, as seems likely, that the winning enterprise is largely unencumbered by regulation and anti-trust restrictions, the person behind it will become the richest, and therefore the most powerful person in history. That's what these tech bros are playing for -- the rest of us are just along for the ride.

But you are leaving out the difference in fertility. The fertility rate of the UK, which as you noted is a population dominated by native britons who trace their ancestry on the island back a millennium or more, is 1.4 live births per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1. In a hundred years the UK will have a smaller population than Haiti.

Because under a true system of sovereignty, people wouldn't be allowed to vote for a Muslim mayor.

It's rare to see such a good example of damning with faint praise. It even managed to cast aspersions on their next generation product all while seemingly heaping praise on them.

Hope you're up on your Sumarian antivirals because I'm gonna Snow Crash your ass.

You're still alive, I see. Yes, it's true, the lethal payload mentioned in the above video isn't actually included within it. I knew there was little danger in linking to this video, but don't you realize it could have been much worse?

Doesn't removing the artist's signature usually reduce the value of a work?

That this isn't the case for Sora 2, tells me something about Sora 2's reputation.

How's that going to work exactly? How will Sony know whom to sue if they contact me and I tell them I made the video myself? If they do not believe me they will have to sue me to get a name and what happens if the court does not believe me too? Even if I did make the video with some AI company's product, I'd be the one who made money by uploading it not that AI company so why are they the ones who have to pay?

You can't cut the creator out of the legal process so easily: they are the only one who knows whether the video used any AI and they are also the one potentially making money from it. It's clear though that the problem is out-of-control greedy companies: the artists are caught between AI companies who want to trample over copyrights and studios who will dump them the instant a much cheaper, photo-realistic AI actor is practical. At the same time moves to strengthen copyrights against AI will almost certianly be abused by the same studios to come after creators.

I agree that laws should treat humans and AI algorithms differently but for that to work you have to be able to distinguish AI vs human work and so far we can't do that with anything like sufficient reliability..

Yes, provided that you can afford ~100+ quid for a ticket, live in Leeds near the station and the trains are all running on time. Even living close to Leeds like Harrogate, adds another 1+ hours each way without any other delays making a day trip much less practical especially given the extreme cost. That's also assuming that you are not arriving in London before 10am - if you are arriving before the cut-off the cost is 200+ quid.

So prehaps, if you are living in the middle of Sheffield, the closest city in Yorkshire to London and money is no object it's a day trip but for those not living near a station in a major city and whose budgets are more limited it is most definitely not.

That sounds less like AI and more like a sponsorship deal with Bud Light.

Is if they confirmed your age by a behavioral maturity test. AI could monitor posts, and if it figures out that someone with an emotional age of 15 or older wouldn't have posted such a thing, you're cut off.

Art and cultural activity is a major sector of the US economy. It adds a staggering 1.17 *trillion* dollars to the US GDP. However that's hard to see because for the most part it's not artists who receive this money.

The actual creative talent this massive edifice is built upon earns about 1.4% of the revenue generated. The rest goes to companies whose role in the system is managing capital and distributing. Of that 1.4% that goes to actual creators, the lion's share goes to a handful of superstars -- movie stars and music stars and the like. This is not as unfair as it sounds, as it reflects the superstar's ability to earn money for the companies they distribute through, but the long tail of struggling individual artists play a crucial role in artistic innovation and creativity. Behind every Elvis there's a Big Mama Thornton, and armies of gospel singers who may have made a record or two but never made a living.

We can't run this giant economic juggernaut off a handful of superstars with AI slop filling in the gaps in demand. But maybe we'll give that a try.

This is why I still come to slashdot. Fan of your work.