jj4211

If the enthusiasts get interior speakers to vroom at them, fine. The ones where they point the speakers to the world though...

But ultimately, after the entire history of cars being "vroom means fast", I think it is a tough pill for them to swallow that it isn't a necessary facet of going fast.

I have seen this argument before and it doesn't make sense even in theory.

I used to work at a company that did open source work and also proprietary work with third party closed source code. The company didn't let anyone who had seen proprietary code contribute to open source, because they felt once a person 'learned' from a proprietary codebase, then it's too risky if similar looking code lands in a project.

Imagine if someone saw the source code for Excel. Then sometime later they notice that Calc didn't have a feature that Excel did, and contributed an implementation of the feature. Even if they hadn't been looking directly at the Excel source code in the moment of implementation, you think Microsoft would be so "understanding" when they see someone that once worked on Excel contributing what could be construed as infringing?

The AI companies also seem to acknowledge this, as they have offerings that promise not to use your proprietary code as training fodder. If it is not a risk of infringement, then why would it matter to promise that the proprietary code is kept out of training data? Though it was short lived, why would OpenAI have even made a deal to license Disney material if it's all fair use anyway? If this sort of stuff is fair game, why do they get so pissy when other companies distill models?

Even as the AI company's have roughly defended this scenario, their defense should be a cause for concern for users. Generally they say that anything they do with things they can read is 'fair use', and when exhibits of clearly infringing outputs are given, they respond with the model only did that because the user's prompt directed it, and thus the responsibility for infringement should be with the AI user, not the engine that produced the infringing output. So the possibility of an unwitting infringement is possible as the AI companies explicitly say it's the fault of the user even if it happens.

But we come to your last point, that essentially at this point, the whole thing is 'too big to fail' and thus the practical risk is low. Which is true. It's just a bit disheartening that these companies are given free reign to interpret intellectual property law whichever way is convenient in the moment.

Note a key point of contention is how the training data is used and whether it is effectively discarding copyright. If you invested time making an open source project to do something people appreciate and you get attribution as a result, you may be unhappy that a model trained on your stuff can let a user prompt up an embedded implementation of what your project does without any attribution.

This pretty much applies to all models. No one limited training data to explicitly public domain stuff.

I think broadly most people are less bothered by what the GenAI can do, but more bothered by what experiences are inflicted upon them by other people using the tech.

All well and good if it can so code reviews and code gen at your behest and you can evaluate and get as much as you think you can out of it, but other people are enabled to be amazingly more obnoxious about it.

"Slop" is mostly because people were inclined to do the slop level quality, but were self limited by the reality their poor ideas were roughly as hard to do as much better ideas. Now AI accelerates people that are not concerned with quality or specifics way more than it can accelerate people that care about specifics and quality.

V100s are ancient in a market obsessed with the very very latest.

The datacenters are unlikely to bother directly with eBay, but they have asset recovery companies that will take the stuff off their hands and seek buyers, including over eBay.

They mostly don't, but this is also not how the datacenters cool them.

A datacenter will either have an open water loop, or an all in one taking heat to a more advantagous place for a radiator to be, or at the very least better managed airflow with bigger fans and more specific air baffles.

This thing has no such luxury and has a small area and unknown broader thermal context, so screaming it is to make up for the limitations of the scenario.

Yes, in every objective way better.

Though it is oddly understated. You put pedal down, you feel it in your gut but it just does it without drama. No roar, no shifting, just immediate "here you go".

I see that Hyundai made the equivalent of cards in the spokes, fake roar, fake shifting. As stupid as that is, it might be an option to feel a bit more of the "drama" of fast ICE.

Quick, divert ICE to dealing with that invasion instead.

I guess the point would be what does the local area get in exchange for losing their forest?

A lot of other developments at least provide the local populace some service or jobs. These are just "give me your land, your power, and water and we will use it to advance our business interests and do nothing for the locals", oh and btw, give us a tax break for the privilege of having us build a datacenter in your area.

Now I'm being bombarded by ads saying 'um, actually datacenters give you tons of permanent jobs and makes power cheaper', so they are just flat out lying instead of actually doing anything to make it worth the local community. Well, except key people on local town councils who somehow end up with NDAs forbidding them from disclosing what conversations they are having with these developers...

Because solar on the roof won't even be noticable against their power footprint. Given current practices, each square foot of a datacenter would need about 1,000 times more square footage worth of solar.

It's just that somehow if they get to go to space, they decide they suddenly just need like two servers in a 'datacenter' instead of thousands. And they need to go to space because Elon says (checks notes) that it's too hard to make more natural gas turbine parts....

Fun fact, over half of the S&P 500 have market caps over 10x revenue.

This has not ended well for companies in the past.

Why would that be making excuses for the USA? It's not that one must be ok and one must be bad, both can be absolutely doing things wrong.