I think you may be confusing the (temporary) improved stock price with improved/recovered profitability? I see the (temporary) stock price recovery, as driven PURELY by valuation, i.e. an increase in P/E (instead of EPS).
Intel’s revenue is currently worse than 10 years ago, and gross profits are 2/3 of what they were around 2012.
The temporary price hike was caused by a huge temporary jump in relative valuation (probably because the US Gov started subsidizing).
I think you are presenting this as true, but all the evidence points to the bailout as having no effect. You aren't presenting any counter evidence other than just saying it worked and to wait.
An article that is the exact opposite of an announcement they've had their worst day on the market in over fifty years is far more specific than "Trust me it worked"
Bruh. You are not being specific. I was being specific.
The stock price recovered. This is a fact. From 20 to 60.
Cannot be argued.
The business will take time to recover. There is no other way. Either it takes time to recover, or it never does. One year is not remotely enough time to know.
I'm not reading an article to infer whatever point you're making. Either make your point, or admit that you are just being contrarian because you hate Drumpf
Alphabet isn't just an AI lab, they're an ad company, a search index, a media distribution company, an email provider, office tool provider, a OS developer, a browser developer, a smartphone brand (Pixel), cloud provider, DNS, amongst a plethora of other services and goods.
OpenAI and Anthropic are AI business, if the AI market burst tomorrow, they'd be the first to flounder.
Google just has to keep pace in the AI space, they don't have to lead. Especially since whom is leading changes like two or three times per month non-stop for four or so years now, including small (by US standards) Chinese AI labs with a fraction of the money who keep pushing the tech forward every month while being open for now.
This is my opinion. I think it's just the way it talks to you.
1. It doesn't get tired or frustrated during a discussion.
2. It'll engage every single one of your questions/statements (besides hitting guardrails).
3. It'll appeal to the person's own ego even when the person is wrong and work around it.
4. It's not seen as a person (very important), but some of us or most of us at least in certain dialogues, end up anthropomorphising it. Think about that one time you thanked it for something, or when you got angry at it. This weird combination where we know it's not a person but irrationally we're still treating it as such in a way leads to a sort of disarming effect imo.
5. Many people see it as an authority figure in what is being discussed without questioning the results in many cases, even though we know that a. it was trained on human data and/or also searches up human data real time (and more worryingly other AI's data from news pieces, blogs... aka synthetic data that is also wrong), b. it gets things wrong all the time.
6. It's the perfect fence sitter depending on which version (guardrails) we're talking about.
Most of these can be replicated by humans who are good at understanding psychology and are just good talkers. The part you can't replicate is the sense that you're not talking to a person which lowers many barriers in people.
Also keep in mind that these can also be crippling weaknesses. For one being able to change a person's mind (when it works), can be used nefariously by the entities controlling the AIs training.
I've also unfortunately witnessed a lot of people who think AIs are somehow omniscient and/or omnipotent. Was very common on X and other social platforms with AI where people ask the AI questions it couldn't possibly answer because it made no sense for it to in the context at the time.
This right here, or at least the thought of this, is why in the not so far future, businesses can't (won't?) be using these LLMs services.
You cannot risk companies like Anthropic, OpenAI or their business partners like Microsoft having unfettered access to proprietary data on your company/businesses.
It it likely that they or rogue employees will use the information to make a profit? It's pure speculation, but I'd say more than likely, and we will never hear about it or read it on the news unless there's whistleblowers in high enough positions to know about it.
Assuming you and your employees aren't careful with what data you share, they will have intimate knowledge about your company from files and conversations logs. Likely personal user data too which they'll gladly create databases to link to and create extensive profiles on you, your employees and your businesses.
It's not far-fetched to see them leveraging insider information shared with LLMs to play the stock market, leveraging data against competing businesses in other markets they might want to explore, and likely a bunch of other things that are escaping me right now as I write this.
At the end of the day it's on those people for sharing such sensitive data, but it's not like these AI companies are innocent and won't gladly exploit every little byte of data without telling you, we know it happens.
Its not "in the future", its already here, right now. Sensitive IP gets processed on rented or local GPUs running open weight models. Sometimes its required due to data privacy laws, sometimes its because the people running those shops are not trusting OpenAI/Anthropic ZDR policies being observed. Normal, boring, US and EU-domiciled enterprises do this on a regular basis, and there is an industry of companies helping said boring companies set things up.
It is even worse. Just them knowing or having an inkling that someone is close to achieving a solution might be enough for them to spawn a team of thousands of agents and outrun you.
> This right here, or at least the thought of this, is why in the not so far future, businesses can't (won't?) be using these LLMs services.
Or they can simply turn off the setting that allows OpenAI to use their chats to improve the model. Or they can use the API where it is off by default.. If the advantage of using OpenAI models will be significant enough for the business in question, these are the options.
>You cannot risk companies like Anthropic, OpenAI or their business partners like Microsoft having unfettered access to proprietary data on your company/businesses.
You do realize that businesses that have contracts with them can specify if they want their data used for training or not right?
One example to illustrate: when talking about dying, Americans would kick the bucket, Poles would kick the calendar, French would break the pipe, Germans would drop the spoon, and the Spanish would pull the leather. But they all would be referring to the US's trust among its allies.
In the US "Could care less" is the equivalent to the British expression "Couldn't care less". The intention and meaning is the same. So the original comment did mean to say what they said.
My point was that what may look like a mistake or a contradiction is just cultural development of natural language.
Another example is the British expression "It would be cheap at half the price"
maybe it's regional? I always thought "Could care less" was in the same class as "irregardless" or "daylight saving time" -- in common use yet technically incorrect
I think you misunderstood the emphasis there - yes Europeans love football.
The point is that it's so blatant for such little gain, it's still a game. I.e. if he is willing to do that so openly for such low stakes, imagine what he does behind closed doors when it matters.
Most have been horrible or horribly mediocre. Financial success doesn't necessarily mean something is good either. Also, some of these are more like: "very loosely based on the video game, so much so that you have to squint very hard to see it." Stuff like Detective Pikachu, or Minecraft are just aesthetics and have little to do with the actual games.
Jun. 10, 2016 Warcraft Film
Dec. 21, 2016 Assassin's Creed Film
Jan. 27, 2017
Resident Evil: The Final Chapter
Film
Mar. 16, 2018 Tomb Raider Film
Apr. 13, 2018 Rampage Film
May 10, 2019 Pokémon Detective Pikachu Film
Feb. 14, 2020 Sonic the Hedgehog Film
Dec. 4, 2020
Monster Hunter
Film
Apr. 23, 2021 Mortal Kombat Film
Jun. 25, 2021 Werewolves Within Film
Feb. 18, 2022 Uncharted Film
Feb. 24, 2022 Halo TV series
Apr. 5, 2023
The Super Mario Bros. Movie
Film
Apr. 8, 2022 Sonic the Hedgehog 2 Film
Jul. 14, 2022 Resident Evil TV series
Jan. 15, 2023 The Last of Us TV series
Jul. 27, 2023 Twisted Metal TV series
Aug. 25, 2023 Gran Turismo Film
Oct. 27, 2023 Five Nights at Freddy's Film
Apr. 5, 2024 Knuckles TV series
Apr. 10, 2024 Fallout TV series
Aug. 9, 2024 Borderlands Film
Dec. 20, 2024 Sonic the Hedgehog 3 Film
Apr. 4, 2025 A Minecraft Movie Film
Apr. 25, 2025 Until Dawn Film
Dec. 5, 2025 Five Nights at Freddy's 2 Film
Jan. 23, 2026 Return to Silent Hill Film
Jan. 30, 2026 Iron Lung Film
May 8, 2026 Mortal Kombat II Film
PS: Note the question being asked is "Will it be any good?" Not "Will it be profitable?"
Yeah, most of the list is pretty dismal, but there are some bright spots. Sonic movies. Fallout, Last of Us (and don’t forget Cyberpunk: Edgerunners) for TV.
The original Castlevania animated show was good, shame about the Warren Ellis situation. Would have loved to see him write Nocturne as well (which was fun but just had a much weaker script).
Please switch off Fox News and fetch real world updates. Europe's dependence and weapon system fragmentation is by USA design; Europe has allowed the US to have this advantage as part of the security architecture, alongside other goodwill handed to the US. Europe is rapidly rearming while the American mil. complex is throwing tantrums, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
reply