gian

With a bank investement I get something back, even if less than what I invested. Could OpenAI pay back even half of what received ?

Which send us back to the starting point: what will happen when the VCs will start to ask for their money back or for their share of the revenue ? Inevitably the bubble will pop.

I think that this is just a technical difference based on what you are investing into.
A personal bank’s investement is a different thing than a investement in a startup, with different level of risks and revenue.

I would think that this warning, in a way or another, is true in every kind of investment, even my bank’s personal investment have something like it.

I don’t think it, I was only pointing out that he was comparing two different things.

I know that there is no way the two events have a compatible frame of reference but that does not means that you can compare the two values.

You are right, but you are comparing apples with oranges here, what was the Great Depression economy contraction ? Or what was the unemployment rates in 2008 ?

It would be interesting to know how many resources this growth has taken from others places…

As for now it don’t seems that AI has generated a profit for the companies that bring it to the market and it seems it will not do it even in the near future, so I assume the question is: how many years can your economy be sustained by a sector that is not generating any revenue and is absorbing a monstrous amount of resources ?

We are not talking about a single company (like Amazon back at the time), do you really think that even when Ai will start (if ever) to generate profits these will be able to repay all the investements done today ?

It is first step. If it will work well, maybe other states will do it.

As today if I give you a phone number you have no idea who is the owner if you don’t look up on some service.
It will not change if instead of the phone number we use the IMEI or a UUID, somewhere you need to have a link between the owner and the something, if nothing else in your phone and at the phone company.

Even talking about phones, having so many fees that you cannot list them all is insane.

so instead of creating some kind of authorization system that would not require sending your private information to everyone the govt did nothing and instead put that responsibility on EVERY company. begs the question why rushing so much?

I would suppose that this is because there is not a single way valid for every govt. For example, in Italy we have SPID, which is different from what Germany, France and every EU state have.
If Discord wanted to use it, they had to implement a numbers of way to do it, which can be not that easy.

Option 3: companies that you pay to provide authentication service. Regulated so that they clearly tell you if they are subsidizing service outside of your payments.

Then you just need to hack this company instead of Discord, you only change target.

Also a great way for Flock to lose their contracts with large blue cities in Texas (and elsewhere).

This would only lead to the emergence of another Flock, with the same problems.

What you should really do is abolish that stupid and retrograde law.

More than Open Source, I would say that Vibe Coding is the new Visual Basic 3.0

And probably it is also the only thing that China wants so that can try to corner the market. But if they move half of the production oversea then they probably will become less appetible for China since they cannot really control the production.
Not that they must do it, just a consideration.

They say to use PDQ for images which should output a similar hash for similar images (but why MD5 for video ?). So probably it is only a threshold problem.
The algorithm is explained here

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/facebook/ThreatExchange/main/hashing/hashing.pdf

it is not an hash in the cryptographic sense.

For example, I went in to met a coworker and fix her laptop. While I was there the devs in front of me were discussing a thing that my team was working on. I didn’t know they needed that thing and they didn’t know we were working on it. I took new information back to my group.

Ok, but that just demostrate that you have no communication between teams. You get the information by sheer luck. have you been there 10 minutes earlier/later you would have missed it.

While bullshitting with the tech support manager I learned some things about their policies and procedures. Found out I had made incorrect assumptions and learning about those helped me in my role.

Again, non clear communication between teams and again you got the information by sheer luck.

True, it has happened because you both were in the office but in a sane environment you would have knows these thing because they would have been documented.

At some point they just said it’s happening and we’re not listening to you.

Which at this point is a more honest answer than the mental gymnastics they are pulling out.

Probably observing the trajectory

Without an actual victim there is no crime.

And I understand this. What I don’t like is the idea that to try to prevent that there will be victims is bad.

We agree on the last part. But my feeling is that if a crime isn’t “bad” enough to require actual jail time then it probably shouldn’t be a crime at all.

Define “bad enough”, because this is a very slippery slope. What about thefts ?

Speeding, DUI, and other risky behaviors should be punished if, and ONLY if, an actual incident occurs. Because then there is actually a victim, and not just some nebulous might-have-been.

Following this reasoning, there are no crimes until you get caught and/or there is a victim. To me this is unacceptable in a decent society.

Hurt someone while drinking and driving? That’s no accident, that’s an intentional attack. Kill someone? Again, not an accident, but premeditated murder.

And why we should not to try to avoid to have a person in jail and one killed in the first place ?