welp. here I stand. corrected.

Unfortunately true. They sell more to people who do less. There’s no shame in owning a big van that can do the same things but still service a family.

My main issue with the Cybertruck (before Elon revealed himself to be a total ass) was that ITS NOT A TRUCK. How can you call it a truck without a truck bed?

The exact opposite of what Aaron Swartz would have envisioned for the site.

I can’t.

I believe what I said, but I’m not following the Chinese market in any serious way. One of my comment edits was to disclose that but I choose the more basic statement. I’m fully willing to be wrong when presented with data. I felt that removing my own hedge allowed comments like yours to more directly challenge the statement.

I’m in the middle of studying for a mid term. I don’t want to use the energy to dig into it. I got my stance mostly from articles I’ve read in passing on how they have regulated their AI market to protect workers and manage circular investing. It could easily have been propaganda.

can you clarify what energy the US is exporting?

China has been taking steps to keep it’s AI industry in check. They’ll be fine. Their bubble pop is essentially a market adjustment. We all just get bent out of shape because of how big these numbers have gotten over the last few decades. The important thing is that the Chinese government took steps to protect it’s other sectors which is why we likely saw their bubble pop before ours.

I’m of the general opinion that it’s when a company decides to go public and issue stock is when it’s lost. Once a company’s governance is beholden to stockholders and the board of directors it becomes only a matter of time before it’s garbage.

That’s my suspicion, yes. We’re witnissing the slow theft of the personal computer.

I just posted this in the main comments, but I also think it loosely ties into saas and killing personal computing. This framing makes it seem like the technology will soon be on par with weapons of mass destruction and it’s not a big leap from “The AI will destroy humanity.” to “We can’t let people have the technology to run agents locally.” It’s about the stock price, yes, but it’s also the long game of removing the user from direct hardware access.

The end game has always been saas in one form or another. They’re calling it an AI buildout but it’s really the theft of computing. ‘Rogue AI Agents’ are the WMDs of this generation. (In the sense that they’re going to be using them as justification to do some bull shit.)

Recently, I’ve been thinking that this is more than just about the stock price. I think they’re playing this game of painting the AIs as super weapons as a justification to start regulating personal computing. If they maintain that these rogue AIs are as dangerous as Skynet, They’ll have the justification to outlaw local models, and to insure that people aren’t using local agents, they’ll further push cloud computing and saas.