A lot of people think that these companies want to become too big to fail but I suspect something else is going on as well.

Step 1. Make/pioneer new tech or buy it.

Step 2. Get investors onboard with it so that you can get a lot of seed money.

Step 3. Invest in the infrastructure to support widespread use of the technology.

Step 4. Develope the technology even though it has known flaws.

Step 5. Let those known flaws stir the pot and cause uncertainty in the market.

Step 6. If the technology fails and the bubble pops, get government bailout.

Step 7. Use money from bailout to buy up the infrastructure and components at a ridiculously rock bottom rate using these companies own money.

Step 8. Use a combination of bailout money and insurance to make the investors whole (or as whole as their contract stipulates).

Now at step 9 you are left with a bunch of commodities that tech companies need (data centers, supply lines for components, better power infrastructure, a knowlegable tech work force etc). And you don’t have to pay astronomical prices because the bottom fell out of the market.

They “paused” that because it was way too expensive to run and it’s popularity cost them too much money and scared investors.

This does not negate our food ranking for safety when compared to the rest of the world no matter how much you might like it to be otherwise.

Think about what I said vs what you think I said before you decide to reply to me.

https://www.glaubfm.com/index.php/blog/us-ranks-3rd-global-food-security-index

Sigh. We’re gonna go from third in the world in food safety to like 80th. Speed run.

You’re still Bonita to me little bug.

Yep. I know an AI can’t actually turn a wrench. I’m not worried about that. But I also recognize that this type of thing affects travel (less people with jobs, less travel, less money to pay maintainers) so I recognize that my job is necessary but at the same time not guaranteed.

Given what I assume is a typo, I don’t know which way to take what you wrote. On the one hand, I agree they grifted the grifted. On the other hand, they could potentially be considered gifted. Gifted enough to understand that using AI this way could allow them to grift people probe prone to being grifted. Of course. If I take it that way I have to assume the second “gifted” is meant in a derogatory way to call them dumb.

I thought about this way too much.

Hopefully companies relying on other companies like crowdstrike.

What are we paying for if not to have things work and have backups? I have so many questions about the companies you give your money to and what you think you’re getting in return?

Like. I feel like there’s a lot of jobs where email could fail/crash and work could still be done. The whole company shouldn’t just shut down because the AI is down. It shouldn’t shut down because email is down. That’s not just poor planning it’s really poor business practice.

What did they do before the AI? Why (when considering how temperamental LLMs can be) would anyone trust it to such an extent that you’re dead in the water if it fails?

In the military we have a maintenance tracking system. It’s electronic. We literally bdo drills for if it goes down and we have to resort to paper backups. And there are paper backups.

Without a computer I could still manage an entire flight line worth of planes, and everything they need. Maintenance, fueling, sorties, etc. What you’re telling me is that this company and lots of companies do not have a contingency for if there is a system failure or other outage.

That seems acceptable? Why? Short of a power outage (and probably not even then unless we can’t Jerryrig a lighting solution) we can do all the jobs required with hand tools. It’s crazy to think that people don’t think this should be a thing.

He sprays that shit on every morning? Surprised his lungs haven’t given out.

Certainly a possibility. Lots of people really dislike Gizmodo as a news outlet for past controversy.

I don’t think them saying this has much to do with liking Altman. Rather, I think they are raging at Gizmodo (because well, Gizmodo) and also at the headline of an article they didn’t read.

Win a car that may be will be spying on you (don’t worry, no one will ever win the million dollars).

You should probably look up the arrest records of civil rights activists and give a good hard think about whether or not you’re willing to be the problem in order to enact a solution because we will not prevail on this in the long run without taking some blows.

This countries government has already proven time and again that they will literally kill people who have done nothing wrong in order to get what they want.

People really do believe that they can fight fascism by just avoiding anything that might get them in trouble.

So I’m going to point out that people have already been harassed, arrested, injured, and killed by law enforcement for protesting in other ways too in this country and historically that has also happened.

A demonstration of why a law being enacted (that uses freely /publicly available information) should not be considered a form of harassment.

Further, if it is then it can be argued in a court of law that if it counts as harassment then the law shouldn’t enable it to be more effective which is the point.

Calling, emailing, and writing to elected officials isn’t harassment, and explaining the very real dangers of the lack of privacy laws and the results of the lack also isn’t by itself harassment. But if you will avoid a protest because you feel there may be reprisals against you for it then you’re very unlikely to be protesting in the first place. They have already won in this scenario.

I don’t think you understand what I’m suggesting.

Sending someone a “This is publically available information readily available on the internet that can and will be abused by people once this bill goes through in conjunction with the type of data that will be leaked from said data collection for ID efforts and it’s already dangerous now” isn’t the same as sending federal judges anonymous pizza. One is a well understood threat, the other is a demonstration from a constituent reaching out to an elected official.

I’m not saying anonymously threaten them.

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2044718576485953536/vid/avc1/996x2160/hyLmEHaGr6DltAA6.mp4

Apparently it’s already exposing sensitive user data and can be bypassed.

Start looking up freely available information about them on the internet and sending that to them. At some point they will start to recognize that privacy is important.

Relatable.

Came here to make sure this was here. Thank you. Carry on.