Lets agree that these folks are wrong and ideally they should have petitioned 12 years ago. The question to ask is - for an admin which loudly claims to make America healthy again and talk about making everything chemical free etc - why can't they pass this? Is it because they can't score brownie points with base or they are overtly corrupt and do the same thing they accuse others of doing? Or that they know their supporters will not look at the validity of the claim and instead discredit people by asking whataboutism and party line questions?
Despite paying for Claude access, I don't use Fable but I find this always changing policy quite exhausting to follow. There is 2x usage, there is no 2x usage, there is 2x usage but only x hours, there is no 2x usage, there is Fable access, there is no Fable access, there is Fable access till x date, there is Fable access till x + y date. This is just exhausting. I just want to open and usage the default model and within limits. That's all I ask.
You missed two things one, a consist thread across all your examples - every market ends with a duopoly along with smaller competitors and two, which of these industries started with multiple billion dollars companies competing with each other?
Even if your case is that two companies in the AI group are going to survive and those will have healthy margins, others are going to suffer and compete on price. So saying “AI margins are going to suffer” is a fair industry wide statement. Maybe it’s not Anthropic or OpenAI or whoever you are thinking of but surely for Gemini or xAI etc?
> I was worried this time last year that by this time this year, companies would have slashed their engineering teams down to a handful and everything would be driven by mostly autonomous agents with human guidance. But it just hasn't happened.
Amara’s law: We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.
This continues to be applied to AI where people think is going to be next 12 to 18 months. Changes are coming but certainly not at the rate Zuckerberg and most people are thinking.
It can tell you what’s on the screen at given point in time. My pipeline is mostly around simple questions like “does this video contain cars?” Not sure if it can spot charts on screen.
It might come as a shock to you then that running government or military or any government service requires “somebody else needs to pay for them”. Let’s get rid of those too. Long live anarchy.
Fact is people who spout this nonsense are simply selfish people with “F you, got mine” mindset. They hide their selfishness in garb and call others socialist.
> They're covered under CICP, which is more stringent and has paid out one person $6 million, and a few hundred grand spread out between some dozen others.
This is trying to play both sides. Appeal to emotion without having a rational thought process. Something bad happening is unfortunate and life changing. Then turning around and saying hundred grand isn’t life changing money for people.
What exactly is your remedy here - should people be not asked to provide proof for the harm and paid 10s of millions for every case? People have been asked proof for lesser things and paid even lesser for much bigger harm.
> My friend who was diagnosed, by multiple doctors in two hospitals with Myocarditis caused by the vaccine has yet to receive any money. It ruined his career.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence of systematic wrongdoing. At least I wouldn’t expect to see on HN but here we are.
This was passed in response to claims against DPT vaccine and manufacturers stopping production of the said vaccine. Lawmakers feared loss of herd immunity and passed the law. Now vaccine skeptics say this is not enough and claim inability to sue the company directly as an issue - but what they really want is enforce their minority view on the majority by suing companies and ensuring no one has access to vaccines - tyranny of the minority.
The same person is not going to give you three different answers within span of minutes. Especially when nothing fundamentally has changed. People might or might not update their views depending on their biases.
At least in my company the CFO came back after talking with other CFOs and then used Lovable to build an app. He then mentioned to his immediate team who then picked it and started running with it. It is now one of the yearly goals. The fun part is when it came time to put money where their mouth is they say the company has no funding. So more FOMO.
The bias will come from your prompt. Asking AI - If voting for Reform UK is a good/bad idea? - shows AI where you at and what sycophantic it needs to give. AI is certainly not biased :)
There are also people who think AI is magic. I have often heard - "we want to use AI to automate processes but we don't have full documentation about the processes, we hope AI can help". Despite being told that no one can create outputs from thin air - every AI topic turns into the same discussion.
Often the solution to create those document to feed into these AI automations? Use AI. Its like ouroboros. Create docs using AI, then summarize and ingest using AI, explained by AI.
Same thing is going to happen with code. Create 1000s of line of code using AI. Then explain it using AI etc.
Ah the whatabboutism strikes again. You talk about X but what about Y?
The sad reality is people have lost the ability to counter the argument and instead counter bias.
Here you instead of countering what was being asserted that this government has knowingly involved in lot of bad faith argument - and there are so many of them - another one is Trump Kennedy center fiasco - trying to muddle the argument with "but LW also does it too" and have no factual argument.
Lets assume LW are the biggest liars in the world and gaslight people. What then? How does it change what is happening here? Just because one party is guilty doesn't mean other is clean.
It is no longer about making good faith claims in court. It is all about RW media dog and pony show. They can make provably false claims in the RW media with - "Do you want China to overtake US in this race?" and still garner support. And even if they lose they can paint the judge as leftist etc. so they have stopped bothering with even trying.
That's the number AI boosters are spreading too "The TAM for AI is all of humanity - this includes every person and every company. So, imagine this huge pile of future revenue." I agree that TAM is likely huge but is SpaceX most suitable to capture that TAM? Unlikely. But for now everyone wants in on the AI hype train and FOMO of losing out one any company in the AI space.
In the long term most markets are duopoly with small competitors. And personally I see OpenAI and Anthropic duking it out rather than SpaceX.
There is some misunderstanding of what a crash really is. It doesn't necessarily mean that things get written down to 0 or some arbitrary level because everything has a price at which someone will buy.
Even companies have some value after a crash and you could make a case that at some arbitrary point it was worth $x and since the crash didn't cause the company to crater to below $x it has not "crashed". Even companies filing for bankruptcy have some residual value above what they might have been founded on - it doesn't mean the company hasn't gone bankrupt.
Contact: triumphantcoder at google's mail dot com