> The United States was a couple feet from an actual coup dude.
How does this square with the oft-repeated line that the Second Amendment is useless when the government has tanks, bombs, and aircraft carriers? January 6th was a bunch of unarmed boomers. If you really think the government was >this< close to being overthrown by them, then you might as well pack it up. The US wouldn't stand a chance if a couple thousand armed Russian or Chinese nationals decided to show up to the Capitol.
That statement assumes that the government orders the military to fight against the coup. The commander in chief would not order it, and had the coup succeeded, the Congress would certify that the commander should continue in power.
At that point it would require the top generals to stage a coup of their own. Which they probably would have. But I'm glad we didn't find out.
The military is extremely strong and would easily show off foreign invaders. But the Constitution didn't foresee an elected but corrupt executive overthrowing the government. That is a blind spot they reasonably didn't anticipate.
Go read some books on how coups work and the numerous historical examples. This comment is just too full of either bad faith or too-far-afield misunderstandings to be rectified in an HN comment thread.
In my mind Jan 6 was not the most dangerous moment regarding the transfer of power. That came earlier when Trump was trying to get the DoJ to declare voting irregularities, ie "Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen." His acting AG at the time refused, and his predecessor Barr had refused to get involved as well. Had Trump had the forethought to pack DoJ with toadies (like he has now) things could have gone very differently.
Weird, I've been told repeatedly that inference is wildly profitable for both of these companies and waves hands training costs are irrelevant for some reason.
It’s: we spent X billion to train our HUGE model and it’s so good we can make money off it. Please fund us for Y billion to build the HUGER model that will maybe destroy the planet, and if it doesn’t we can’t sell it back to users at profit because of legitimate security concerns. And then we’ll need Z billion to train...
Does anyone see the path to ROI here? There is clearly a profitable business model within these big AI labs, but it’s held captive by messianic 90-page IPO risk statements. I know they want to sell restricted access to the more capable models but the market for those kind of professional services doesn’t even exist yet.
Are there enough people using AI for coding and advanced math and physics who need even better models to justify these values? Because for "normie" non-coding tasks (searching, summarizing, writing) which it seems to me are what the vast majority of users would use, we have ChatGPT at work it defaults to the Luna 6 model and it seems fine as-is today.
> The Asahi Linux project kicked off in December 2020. About 2 years before the first ChatGPT (Nov 2022). It had a lot of ideals including working with the BSDs at the time, and so they surveyed the landscape and considered the downsides at the time vs the upsides and decided a BSD approach was the right tradeoff. Now, 6 years later, the landscape has changed pretty radically
Asahi themselves cited WINE forks from the early 2000's as a case study in "bad actors" abusing permissive licenses. So AI really has nothing to do with this, they were well aware of the precedent in this area.
To me it's just another example of this weird hypocritical stance some free software people have. They love putting the code out there and letting it spread far and wide, but once someone _else_ starts making money building off it, "hey no fair!"
Maybe what we need is better messaging from the people building data centers.
WHY do we need infinity data centers? To "win" the AI race? Tell us in quantifiable terms what constitutes "winning."
And we already have 10x the data centers that China has. Can't we pump the brakes a little bit? If not, tell us why not without using vague language.
Finally, tell us, again in quantifiable terms, how building a data center will benefit us. Tell us exactly how many PERMANENT jobs are going to be created, how much tax revenue is going to be created, and let us hold you to it. There HAS to be something in it for us.
There's a little more to it than "just a launcher." My Steam account dates back to the release of Half-Life 2. Loads of games, thousands of dollars spent, and a service that's been reliable for over 20 years. Why would I use a different service? I'm not unique, everyone else using Steam is in the same boat, just with less time invested.
They've undoubtedly locked us all in, but they've shown themselves to be trustworthy and reliable.
Even if they are losing money, if they went from $10b to $2t in evaluation, that's still $1.99t in value that has accrued to insiders rather than the general public.
> How much of this is the current uncertainty over politics in the US?
Uncertainty that just developed overnight?
> With the incredibly frustrating aspect that we can't really directly discuss exactly how corrupt a few of the main actors have been, to date.
What does that have to do with Intel, Amazon, and Google's financial results?
And where did you get the impression that no one can "discuss" any of this? A minute doesn't go by that someone isn't talking about Trump. Including you, regarding a completely unrelated topic.
How does this square with the oft-repeated line that the Second Amendment is useless when the government has tanks, bombs, and aircraft carriers? January 6th was a bunch of unarmed boomers. If you really think the government was >this< close to being overthrown by them, then you might as well pack it up. The US wouldn't stand a chance if a couple thousand armed Russian or Chinese nationals decided to show up to the Capitol.
reply