It depends on the nature of the job.
If you are a educated professional, then companies get pissy about how your second job might interfere with your primary work and erode some competitive advantage.
If you are working hours in a fast food place, they don't give a shit unless you fail to cover your shifts and never are available to pick up a shift for someone who can't cover theirs.
a share of % of the profits.
Hollywood already has the playbook for that. You can have as little "profit" as you need to avoid payouts to people with profit share arrangements. Funny how executive compensation cuts into profits...
There's a difference.
When Daren goes 80 in a 30, they actually might be punished as that abuse is recognized and penalized.
With LLMs, there's no such thing as consequences for the bad uses, only rewards.
Internet video feeds are chock full of slop now because that is rewarded. Video platforms are even making "AI remix" buttons to accelerate taking an actual video with thought and effort behind it into uninspired slop. People are making knockoffs left and right but the courts are largely ruling that AI is 'transformative' so those knockoffs that a human would get sued over are getting passes. Managers are micromanaging worker use of AI in hopes that maybe they can prove they can fire most of them.
LLMs enable the worst users more than they enable good users. In software development, the responsible operation of an LLM might speed up a developer 20-50%, depending on the context. An irresponsible one that just assumes the output is good will post a whole lot of crap. Same for all fronts, prose, video production, music. People who care about the medium can get some speedups, but people who are just lazy, uninspired, but see an opportunity can drown out the quality content.
Yeah, there's a lot of stupidity at the concept.
If I recall, his rationalization was that a particular company was backordered on parts to build natural gas generators until 2030... So naturally it's so much easier to get to hundreds of starship launches a month and all the attendant solar and radiators and crap....
I think you misundestood the comment... It's laughable at how many things they threaten to "put people on a list" over, and if true, that list is uselessly long and lacking meaning.
I also presume the harm to civilians was a criticism of the IDF...
So I thought I had that setup, but it so happens that I ended up with two 401ks at the exact same provider via two different companies, and there are different options between the employers.
I don't see a particular pattern as to why one would be different from the other, but they are...
Because Elon said so, and a lot of these people are playing with other people's money, so it's worth a shot.
Elon says:
Yes, he claimed that hundreds of Starship launches a month is a more realistic thing to pull off than making some parts of natural gas turbines...
Remember, Musk also proposes a combination. That AI will, for whatever stupid ass reason, become predominantly space based and that they would be having hundreds of Starship launches a month....
YouTube started in 2005, but was not really a "streaming service", it hosted random internet posted videos. The concept of engaging with the big content rights holders wasn't remotely in sight back then.
Hulu came out a year after Netflix started streaming, by about a year. Hulu was inspired by Netflix's move to have actual traditional media content as a streaming service instead of ad-hoc video uploads like youtube.
RealPlayer offered technology for websites to provide videos, they themselves I don't recall being a streaming platform in and of itself.
Whatever one may say about Netflix, they were right there in the beginning with streaming traditional, professional media content. Yes, video playback over the internet wasn't new, but that's a technical detail that enables, but is not the core of the "streaming service" business model.
The thing is this really depends on the speed of some financial events, not some technical failing.
Notably, if OpenAI has to cancel any of their commitments to buy hardware because they find they have neither the money nor can secure even more debt to cover, that event would potentially cause the bubble to pop, even for hypothetical companies that may have been more responsible and might have a viable business approach. Those commitments are coming up, and a lot of analysis struggles to see how they will fund those commitments.
The thing with this bubble is that the investors don't get the nuance and will flee at signs of trouble in any of OpenAI, Anthropic, or a handful of others, and Altman's leadership has made trouble at OpenAI very likely, but the investors don't believe it and won't believe it's unique to OpenAI, even if it would be.
Google is only worse by virtue of their reach. OpenAI and Anthropic don't have the reach yet, but they absolutely will get there given the chance.
Before Google had the reach it has now, it was widely regarded as a comparitive 'good guy' and people believed in the "don't be evil". Lo and behold once they got going, "don't be evil" went away.
Lot's of peaple slamming its use...