Quite frankly a huge amount of skepticism is absolutely warranted. The AI tech companies are broadly worrisome, but Palantir takes the cake for outright villainous efforts.

To the extent they have shown ambition for a future, they haven't shown they have a whiff of folk's best interests at heart.

Nope...

Note the intent to "retrain" labor.

The AI dividend in their scenarios wawould be a trivial gimmick. They still want the labor force toiling, but a dividend to mollify concerns about AI displacement.

If this happened, I would bet maybe 100 or 200 dollars a month of "dividend". You'd still be expect to toil away under the capitalist rules to actually have a credible living.

In terms of what to change to doing, some of these folks already said that people need to return to manual labor. They really hope AI will work as a strategy to make educational an impractical choice and people just kind of stay uneducated and desperate to provide manual labor for sustenance.

This is a path for them to patch what they see as a problem in capitalism: some modicum of class mobility. Other than that possibility, capitalism works great for them. For communism as a core principle, then they need to go full authoritarian, and the power struggle among them to get there is a more dangerous one than a modified capitalism.

Also reminiscent of blockchain hype ...

Remember when a tea company added blockchain to its name and its stock soared 200%?

Later, they were investigated and charged by the SEC.

Ok, but how does it work in the scenario where it pushed another package into the street and then the package gets hit by a car? A package that may have nothing to do with Amazon aside from it being pushed into the street.

Also, from my experience with this, it's true that 90% of the time they are pretty agreeable, but coincidentally the 10% of the time where they are skeptical just happens to be the more expensive stuff.

I just don't order expensive stuff from amazon. Actually, Amazon is only if I can't get it anywhere else reasonable nowadays.

Something can be 'technically superior' but still not the 'best' solution, because 'solution' includes a lot of factors beyond 'technological superiority.'

First to market is a crapshoot; sometimes it makes you the baseline, and sometimes it just gives your competition free market research. This is where Apple lived for a long time; let Microsoft or whoever do something, then do it better.

Of course, problem is the lack of availability of similar data for successful companies.

To the extent it *might* work, that's all the stronger case to keep your successful company's information confidential, to avoid helping future competition be a broadly more capable company.

So we are still stuck at training your model to be a crappy business.

Train models mostly on the communications of failed businesses... What could go wrong?

Think this was more about the business side than the execution side.

They can be just fine if Linux desktop is seen as 'acceptable' in the mass market. The operative word being 'seen', not if it should be acceptable, but if people believe it to be.

It's a tall order to shift the perception of the mass market.

If Microsoft screws over their users, and now 'just enough laptop' can be bought from Apple within a price range long deemed 'adequate', then AMD/Intel essentially *need* people to decide they *love* linux desktops, and broadly speaking at this point the mass market is "a device that runs a browser and who cares about OS as long as it's not actively pissing me off".

It actually might go badly for Linux desktops if Windows screws up their market share too badly. Apple does not give a shit about Linux support and so Linux desktop largely lives on the standardized ecosystem in x86 side in part thanks to the separation of concerns between the hardware vendors and Microsoft. If Microsoft managed to kill the Windows desktop hypothetically, might be hard pressed to have any hardware for Linux desktops to run on anymore...

Because GenAI screws up, and screwing up is less of a big deal for the attacker, but can be a huge deal for the defender.

Attacking GenAI fails and either your attempt does nothing and you are no worse off, or it accidentally trashes a system that you were trying to control or copy data from, but you didn't care about that

Well, compared to the Windows release strategy...

That's assuming that you even publish the code at all. Looks like they would keep their codebase internal.

GenAI is a bit nicer for offense than defense.

If you are an attacker, the time and consequences of a GenAI mistakes can be more easily ignored. Whoops, an attack that didn't work but you weren't going to succeed anyway. If it screws up the target in a way that you didn't actually want, you may have an opportunity cost because you wanted that data or to ransom the data, but you didn't care *that* much about the data. It's actually a pretty unambiguous 'win' for malicious users since the usual downsides don't matter.

If doing defense, the consequences of GenAI mistakes are more costly. An erroneous security fix actually becomes a hole. A change that loses data is data you actually care about.

All that said, I'm not sure closed sourcing and maintaining an open fork would realistically do anything. I doubt the proprietary fork would be sufficiently different to protect them from hypothetical security issues in their codebase.

This is definitely a sign of the current bubble (LLMs).

And some of us do remember ...

For example when a tea company added blockchain to its name and its stock soared 200%?

Later, it was investigated and charged by the SEC.

Just like Pets.com in the dotcom era.

And thousands of other comparable pivots went nowhere.

At least with amazon, you could connect the dots, ok, we are investing in an online bookstore, ok, now they are selling more stuff, but it's still selling online stuff... Many years later they start being seen as a compute vendor, but only after they had shown in-house prowess for years prior.

This is just coming out of nowhere with no continuity purporting to mysteriously outmaneuver every existing player despite the big issues in their way being well known and aren't going to be alleviated unless you make your own fabs and chips...

Ok, guess I'll give it a shot:

AI AI AI AI AI AI. Give me funding.

That should do it.