I’m also not thrilled about the obsession with copyright. I was against copyright in the 90s. I was against copyright in the 2000s. I was against copyright in the 2010s. And now these people want to call integrity lack of ethics just because I’m not willing to endorse yet another extension to a legal monopoly forbidding me from running arbitrary algorithms on data supposedly owned by someone else?

I’m sympathetic to the environmental arguments. Though I also would point out there are much greater areas of marginal waste to cut on. Online advertising uses more energy than AI. I look forward to the day it’s banned.

But the whole “we’re going to play pretend that I can ban you from transposing text I wrote through a matrix” thing? Absolutely not. Nothing good comes out of that.

Is it me or this plan is just unhinged? Not just politically bad, or imbalanced, or whatever. But actually fantastical, not meant for implementation. In fact I can’t think of anyone who’d accept it, not the zionists either. It seems headline-driven policy. It’s just intended to make noise.

At least Oslo was shitty but conceivably workable for some values of workable.

This is talking about tariffs and SEZs in the middle of rubble.

Good news on nuclear, awful news on gas, but considering the German fake energy transition is powered by it, it’s perhaps inevitable.

Also this just annoyed me more than it should:

Nuclear power is a carbon-free source of electricity but it is not typically labeled as green energy, like solar, wind and other renewables. Generating power this way requires mining and processing uranium to create nuclear fuel, an energy-intensive process that produces emissions.

Unlike wind turbines and solar panels, which are made from butterfly shine and faery sighs.

My understanding is that Firefox can’t generate and store them by itself, it needs some other mechanism.

I’m not very convinced by this article. A lot of the “realities” are not, they’re policy choices. Just as an example, the notion of the non-driving elderly adult having to be taken by their child to some office to get an ID is just a consequence of the US choosing not to have compulsory and free or nominal charge ID for all residents. Most of the other objections are equally dependent on specific policy choices, which may apply in some places and not others.

Fantastic! I’m back in. Thank you so much.

I think PTH is not around, not sure about Apollo.

Heh, wrong type of tracker. :)

Excellent job, Wolfkiller.

Oh, and buying fossil overpriced energy in the bargain too. How truly good.

Interesting article, and I definitely agree I prefer clear instructions when those are possible.

I only have an objection. When it’s said that no matter how well chatbots behave, it’s bad design, and that they’re being used to substitute expensive people; well, expensive people’s interface is chatting too. So in that regard I’m not sure there’s a meaningful difference. Obviously there is if the chatbot is badly behaved, but the article says that it’s a problem even setting that aside.

You can dress it however you like, maybe even plead necessity, but what you can’t do at the same time is say how democratic it is because this features exists (which they don’t).

Edited for spelling.

Wow, it’s like he chose those examples on purpose to make his argument as ridiculous as possible: open borders (except for all the people forbidden to leave), regular elections (except now they’re indefinitely postponed)…

Get your DeepSeek3 and r1 weights before it’s illegal!

One of the things you’re missing is the same techniques are applicable to multimodality. They’ve already released a multimodal model: https://seekingalpha.com/news/4398945-deepseek-releases-open-source-ai-multimodal-model-janus-pro-7b

Advertising, cryptocoin shit, pay to play… This is an awful idea.

First it was NS2, now the cables. I wonder if they’ll admit the claims of Russian EM weapons–so-called Havana syndrome–are likewise groundless.

Haha, I was just going to post that. It’s such a cliché:

Made in China 2025 has, then, achieved most of its aims. But at what cost?

And of course the cost is… not enough consumer spending and services. Right. (with a tiny nod towards healthcare.)

At a guess, it’s following older British norms, whereby a billion is what it is in other European languages (a million million) and a thousand million is a thousand million or, more pretentiously, a milliard. You’d have to ask the authors though.

Mmm, China perfidiously stealing the hard-earned talent of Western engineers? I know just the solution! They should build an anti-communist self-defence wall:

We no longer wanted to stand by passively and see how doctors, engineers, and skilled workers were induced by refined methods unworthy of the dignity of man to give up their secure existence in the GDR and work in West Germany or West Berlin. These and other manipulations cost the GDR annual losses amounting to 3.5 thousand million marks.

Some fine historical irony. Of course, given the way the university system works in places like the US, there’s not even a good argument that this imposes costs on the public, who trains personnel only for them to leave and benefit some other state.

Maybe this is what Trump’s wall is for.

At least there seems to be some change in messaging that indicates peace may be nearer.