The Administrator needs to unambiguously tell the EU, stop DSA actions against US tech companies or there will be negative consequences for the NATO umbrella.

I have always dreamed of being cyber-augmented. A camera and a brain implant, so that I could look at a sign and mentally think "zoom in" and read it from a distance. Or look at some acquaintance and have it display: "Joe Smith, at 37. 2 kids Joey and Kaley. Joey just joined Cub Scouts. Kaley auditioned for the part of Dorothy." That would frieking rooock! Or to listen to a speech and have it pop-up with fact checks.

We have the tech!!!!

But the data stream is owned by assholes!!!

When we imagine this, we don't imagine that the video + your location + the last time you made a bowel movement is streamed to an advertising company who offers this as a free service so that they can beam targeted ads into your brain. That's now how this is supposed to work. Do I like the idea that a computer can warn the school principal that a student brought a gun into school? Yes! But not if that means the camera also tracks the student's every movement and knows who is on their period. That's not cool, and it's not worth it.

Technology futurism isn't evil. But the population at large ceded control of the internet to the least worthy of humanity. We can get to a really cool future only if people flock to systems that are designed around people controlling their own data.

Did you report back and inform the LLM of the solution, so it could improve its answers?

Also, does /. permit LLMs to drag the /. swamp and scrape out these nuggets?

It's the opposite of a dummy load in electronics. Dummy loads are intended to safely dissipate power, while AI bots are intended to broadcast...

From Sec 230a:

(a) Findings
The Congress finds the following:

(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.

(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.

(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.

(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.

From the beginning:

- The Internet has developed and expanded sufficiently that it no longer needs the protection nor encouragement offered via this legislation.
- The development of the Internet has actually reduced and limited users' control over the information they have access to. That is censorship, for those of you in Rio Linda.
- The development of censorship, protected by Sec 230, has challenged the development of true diversity of political discourse, unless you're considering false information and misrepresentation to be diversity. And there is an argument for that.
- The Internet is suffering under implicit government regulation. Sec 230 here is somewhat defeating one of its own stated purposes.
- Americans, and indeed the world, are relying on the Internet so much more than they did prior to enactment of Sec 230. it is even more important now.

Sec 230 is used to permit Internet 'publishers' to escape responsibility for their censorship, promotion, and fabrications., Not that fabrication in the American press is anything new, and has never needed legislative protection before. But the Internet is the current means of yellow journalism, and as such needs nor should have protection beyond the First Amendment. Repeal it now.

The real surprise here is that the people who run WaPo think the AI-generated posts are different than their regular WaPo-generated posts...

Actually, they knew that all along. They just had to issue disclaimers to redirect the prols to the preexisting sources of misinformation. And to run interference, adding an apparent air of legitimacy to the human-generated content.

The question is will anyone pull the plug does anyone have the will to pull the plug, who can actually make that decision?

I don't mean nominally either, I mean practically. Even if you are the CEO; giving the order to shut down you hyper-scaled AI/ML platform because someone some people from the 'safety' team you only hired to virtue signal in the first place say they think 'something' is happening. Its a career ending move, most likely, and you'll have to hang around and slug it out with half a nation of disgruntled 401k holders who saw the NASDAQ drop and are demanding the company start operating again.

Could president or some member of the joint-chiefs demand power be cut to the datacenter. Same problems what will people believe, what will the political fall out of 'blowing up the economy be'?

Now for the record I think this is all hype. These people are saying this stuff because what they really want you think is, 'omg omg if this technology is so powerful even the owners are afraid of it, it just has to be the next big thing, its like harnessing the atom was 70 years ago! BUY BUY FOMO BUY BUY' At no point is anything resembling the current state of the art over at OpenAI going to turn into 'Mike' (See the Moon is a Harsh Mistress). Its just marketing. However if a real synthetic intellect ever did appear AND start to have control over IRL events in any remotely unexpected ways I have little to no faith the organizations around it would recognize what was happening and respond appropriately. I suspect it takes more courage to pull the plug than most folks have.

This is an often-repeated rumor but the numbers say otherwise. The claim's origin is that Biden made a policy of not granting any new oil drilling licenses on federal land. But that didn't really change anything since there are plenty of wells, and it is difficult to open new wells on undeveloped federal land since it involves building roads, seeking permits, etc. Offshore drilling is generally easier, and we have a glut of offshore drilling wells that are still full.

The number of new licenses issued didn't change significantly between Obama / Trump / Biden. In some periods Biden's numbers were bigger, in some Trump's were bigger. The US isn't desperately looking for new oil and mineral sources. There are so many outstanding oil drilling licenses that have been granted and left unused, and we can already produce more oil than we can refine. Oil prices are really determined by refinery capacity, not new drilling licenses.

Piling on, Arizona Corporation Commission races are indeed contentious. They bring out activists that desperately want to turn Arizona into a California clone.

And I doubt the ACC will try to force this datacenter on Chandler. If you wonder how our Democrat Governor thinks of things, she is busy celebrating an "Ag-to-Urban” Groundwater Conservation Approval", just to ensure 825 new homes can be built in Buckeye, which were blocked because metro Phoenix does not have sufficient assurances of water supply for the next 100 years to permit further growth in that city.

It's darned hard to oppose development in Arizona. Too many stakeholders want to make their profits. Even Katie Hobbs will bow to them. Oh, wait, she bows to whoever greases the skids.

I watched all the stuff the GPP mentioned when I was young, and I actually watch a lot of PBS now; but not nearly as much and less and less all the time. Why because i am replacing it with youtube'ers who genuinely are better.

As great as Roy Underhill's or Norm Abrams' shows ever were, I learned more applicable wood working from Acorn to Arabella and Sampson Boat Co, or at least understood them finally. Same things with cooking, ATK is still amazing, and Julia and Pépin shaped me in the kitchen; but there is plenty out there now that is every bit as good and its not hard to find.

I loved PBS in the late 80s thru the late 90s, but the era is over.

blah blah

is an incredible value for the money, said everyone defending every government dollar every time..

Certainly in the era before ubiquitous highspeed internet access and pick your self-publishing video platform, those things were great.

They are obsolete now. There is a time when even where you have found something that worked, the need is gone and it is time to stop doing it.

You had to go anonymous to post this? Pathetique...

From a technical standpoint your are correct. From a practical standpoint there is something we all are not seeing.

The industry has customers that place a lot of value on relative anonymity. There isn't anything inherently illegal, immoral, or wrong with 'dark money' either it really isn't anyone's business what anyone else invests their personal wealth in. (beyond basic tax law enforcement etc, which yes privacy does complicate)

The industry also must certainly be aware they make quite a lot of money off players who are in fact sanctioned, using their platforms in complex laundering schemes and the like.

I don't see anyone who is running and IB, brokerage, or exchange wanting to just make all that go away. Maybe I am to cynical but if the people in those positions were really the types to say "hey we are willing to make less money, for the greater good" well there are at lot of things like know your customer standards and the like they'd have beefed up voluntarily already.

So I am left with there is a plan here we have not seen yet, like charging premiums for coin blending services or other various proxy ownership games like invite only trading of in house assets off chain.

One thing I am certain of nobody is trying to give the SEC radical transparency out of the goodness of the big hearts

Check the 3 year PMI at Trading Economics. Not obvious that manufacturing activity in the US has done anything but increase over the last 12+ months.

You have different statistics? Of course, we know what statistics are, don't we? Even that site has conflicting data, because there is no single measure that tells us much. Bitterness is not an acceptable economic policy.

That's so 80s. Browsers got a lot more functionality in the 90s. You were there, right?