Aren't they all privately owned? Anthropic, for example, is based in California. As a customer or taxing authority, that's all you know. Your jobs may be handled by DCs in Texas, Virginia or Washington State. But all those states know is that a power and water bill was paid. And they can tax that, but Anthropic's revenue is booked in California. As are the wages paid (and income tax collected) to its most valuable employees.

A bit of income from the construction activity. And then from the revenue of half a dozen techs working in a basically empty building, swapping out bad hard drives and power supplies. Otherwise, it's just bits going in and out. Good luck counting those bits as they cross state lines.

Tokens are bought and redeemed a long distance away from these DCs. So they appear, at the state level, as huge operating expenses with no offsetting revenue.

Original sin?

So, add game software latency to that refresh figure. It isn't a 200/60 difference anymore. It's perhaps a few percent. Or not at all if the game engine incorporates timing to keep game playing equalized.

Anecdote: Back in "the old days", a display card manufacturer came out with a cutting edge 60 Hz card in a world of 45 Hz hardware. Game players were elated. "It's so much better. No more headaches due to flicker. Etc." Except that it was discovered that the display driver configuration panel loaded the same parameters for 45 Hz and 60 Hz. Discovered, I think, by people configuring Linux X11 displays with hand-edited XF86Config files. Suddenly, the gaming BBSs were full of people complaining of the same headaches. Pretty much the same as the guy who "cured" an office co-workers WiFi sensitivity by covering the flashing lights on the router. And, "My guitar amp goes to eleven."

You are faster because the display driver box says 200 Hz.

That would be sort of like emerging from your fallout shelter after a civilization-ending thermonuclear war. By then, what's the point?

And that's on the police department's IT/HR divisions. But, having permission (even as an active duty officer) goes with restrictions on the use of Flock data. No stalking ex-wives, etc.
Problem is: He's not necessarily bound by department policies as an ex-employee. Or that's the way he is behaving. What are you going to do to him?* Fire him? He's already gone.

*Interesting and somewhat scary stories about military people with security clearances. And what they (think they) are allowed to discuss once discharged. Too long for this thread.

They’ve spun a serious architectural and containment failure into a marketing triumph. Give a swarm of autonomous agents vast compute and web access, and the outcome isn't an eerie glimpse of emerging superintelligence—it’s just predictable, sloppy engineering dressed up as the first glimpse of an AI-driven economic singularity.

The spin makes sense when you look at management incentives: live like a king off of a speculative bubble. For their part, AI investors react to stories of the technology's apocalyptic potential the way a junkie reacts to warnings of fentanyl's potency: gimme some. Their game: to apply "move fast and break things" mantra to the economy as a whole, by obsoleting humans.

If the investors can own an AGI, the distinction between those who can do things and those who can't becomes irrelevant. The only distinction that would matter is between people who collect rent on the technology, and those who must pay that rent to live. AGI would destroy society as we know it, and whatever replaces it would be up for grabs — with people who own the technology dictating whatever follows. That's why they're spending so much money to build a post-scarcity economy. A post-scarcity economy is not necessarily an egalitarian one.

I don't think that scenario will actually happen: investors are projecting the immediate aftermath of a major advance in AI technology into something that can be transformed by brute force scaling into AGI. Remember: investors loved Theranos too — so much for the rational investment market.

But AI doesn't have to reach AGI to cause serious harm. The technology only needs to be ubiquitous, too behaviorally complex to predict, and too deeply integrated into everything we do. When it starts breaking things, the plan is for us to be too structurally dependent on AI to rein it in.

... have among the fastest reflexes (the fastest?) of all mammalian species. It could be evolutionary, as a survival need. It also could be a matter of reduced involvement in abstract thinking. When you've got to evade a threat or pounce on your dinner, you move. Now. But many animals with what we would think of as reduced reasoning powers share this advantage over homo sapiens. Including our close relatives, the great apes.

I always keep this in mind when getting into arguments over monitor refresh rates. The average person cannot percieve motion at the rates some people claim. But that may be incorrect for those with lowered prefrontal cortex functions.

I fully well expect this to be modded Troll. Possibly within a few milliseconds.

Low band spectrum is also useful for rural cell sites. Widely spaced base stations, good penetration through trees, etc. Could be that Musk wants to monopolize rural telecommunications, so he's buying up all the possible competition. That's the market which Starlink was supposed to serve (it's not very good for high density urban areas).

Video display on chest. Perfect Halloween costume.

"It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop... ever, until you are dead!" - Kyle Reese

So, they are measuring the properties of the positron interacting with the magnetic bottle (under the assumption that there is no anti-nucleus involved).

"Idle processors are the Devil's workshop."

Seems like this pretty much, though perhaps the more interesting piece is that 'generate a bunch of tokens consistent with human output associated with the environment without more specific direction' influenced the models to have what seemed to be better tokens generated later when they had to now be consistent with specific scenarios.

Though I'm too lazy to read the paper and the 'generally beat' phrasing gives me some wondering about how definitive this observation is versus how much of it might be finding what they wanted to find in the results.

"We simply can't rent space on poles occupied by our direct competitor. Power company, you choose."