Is this may piss enough people off that we get more independent film and tv, and less remakes and superhero movies. The problem is the financing, and how bloated the industry has gotten. I think we need to rely now on students to make shoestring budget stuff and hopefully that encourages more independent financing. Publish it online only. The audience and tech are there.

Always remember that a corporation never has your interests at heart. It only cares about the stock price and profits. Any actions it takes are in service of those two things.

AI is not going to end the world. Stupid fucking humans who believe anything they read are going to end the world. If it wasn't AI it would be "information" gathered by a nutjob in Trump's cult.

That this guy was right, and SkyNet is going to come online and kill humanity.

And he left the company and didn't do jack shit to stop it.

The big AI labs are now officially colluding on making AI seem scarier to justify a higher IPO and keep the models from getting "too smart". This way they can milk the improvements over a longer period of time and keep charging way too much money. Also a good reason politically to suppress Chinese models that are "not as safe". Protectionism here we come

This solves a lot of problems:

- Since AI can't be copyrighted, its later use shouldn't be prohibited. You can use the results of the AI you paid for, for whatever, including distillation. Trademark law still applies, ToS against abuse still applies, there's just no preventing people from taking it and using it for something competing.
- Distillation makes open weights more powerful, competing with the frontier labs.
- The frontier labs thus won't make as much money, which means building thousands of datacenters. So we stop the onslaught of datacenter building.
- Less power concentrated in a single company's hands, which means we have more legal and political control over AI.
- We gain the benefits of the competition of open weight and other AI companies that distill. Competition reduces cost, increases efficiency, increases consumer choice.

The question is, can a company legally restrict people from using the *result* of a given product, for use in some other product? Since the output of AI is not copyrightable, my not-a-laywer opinion is, you can't restrict its use.

We still have nukes so we're mostly fine on safety.

The bigger issue is batteries. No matter who's making the car, if it's battery powered, China controls it. If we don't advance our own battery manufacturing then we will remain a stone age backwater.

Their big complaint is our cars suck and are too expensive. Subsidizing isn't why theirs are cheaper. They're just more advanced at manufacturing than anyone else in the world. They're just better.

They want to force us to buy crappier cars. And as a result, force us to pay more money and deal with more problems. Which means they won't have to compete anymore and our cars will get worse.

This is why protectionism is always a bad idea and competition is a good thing. It forces companies to get better. The same way Chinese companies had to get better.

No liberal 15 years ago was saying they wish London was more white.

They might be funding his foundation, but the money goes into his pocket to build his Linux distribution. He will be using this platform to push his racist views, the way the has for years through Ruby and his companies. And the other 1Password founder is pretending he's not even racist.

I can't financially support 1Password knowing my money is also funding racism. Time to find a new password manager.

I assume the rename was intended to troll Canadians? Oh man they must be super pissed. What a huge inconvenience for them... How will they ever find their way, assuming they wanted to cross the border?

"...or the worst source of injustice"

Or both? Like most of modern society's advancements? We have both air conditioning and laser-guided missiles. We have the most food in history and a lot of starving people worldwide. The car both unlocks people's ability to do more, and poisons them/the environment. It's not either/or, it's tradeoffs.

"As the models become more powerful, they could begin to act against our interests and we could lose control"

This will never happen, and the proof is Bill's own words. He is already acting to keep control. Humans don't just sit back and let themselves get steamrolled, they act to put things in place that protects them and retains their own power and control. The machines will never pull a fast one on us because we're already too paranoid and power-crazy.

"In his essay, Gates proposed taxing AI or robots the way you would pay a human employee's payroll tax in order to slow the shift away from using human labor."

This is like putting a tax on the Cotton Gin. What would be the point? To artificially raise the price of goods and services? The whole point of technology is to ELIMINATE HUMAN LABOR. It's the reason we have computers to begin with.

Cramer's picks are so bad that he is more often wrong than right. A study (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cxoadvisory.com%2Fgurus%2F) (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.danerwealth.com%2Fblog%2Fthe-terrible-track-record-of-wall-street-forecasts) showed that he was accurate only 47% of the time, or worse than a coin flip.

If Cramer says to dump AI, that means you should buy AI.

10 million people within spitting distance of America who now have a *renewed* reason for revenge. This administration is filled with geniuses.

It's gonna be directed by Shawn Levy, who makes pablum for the masses, so it'll be exactly like the Grogu movie. Making a buck with predictable crap and stretching the IP