jj4211

Not the beginning, 'Device as a Service' has been the buzzword as of late, but basically has been a thing for decades. I remember twenty years ago scratching my head at why the company I worked at paid more to lease desktops for three years than it would have cost to just buy them outright, or even finance them.

Suffice to say in reality there would be context to indicate who in that partnership would be the unreasonable one. As presented, no way to know if he gamed once in a while and she is annoyed because she is disdainful of the activity, or if he is marathon gaming and never engaging with her.

The image includes a subsequent "what have you done?" which even if you believed everything else, would not have happened.

Yes, but even assuming the origin number was real (it almost certainly isn't), they spammed countless others. If they got counter spammed, they'd have no inking which victim caused it to happen. Unless the person told them, which according to the picture didn't happen. Or they told the Craigslist people his own real number to let the spammer know who sent them, which seems like an even worse idea.

It is a fake story.

The existing network will be gone within a few years. By design. If all goes well for SpaceX, it will have been replaced by a new network, which will also be gone within a few years.

Just pointing out that the existing network can't be relied upon without continued re-investment constantly. It's hard to build up a strong first mover advantage when the fruits of the effort burn up in the atmosphere routinely.

Even if they did believe in the possibilities, they are likely eager to offload in favor of a more diversified investment strategy.

Most folks I know that even think their company is in decent enough shape sell off RSUs quick as they can because they broadly don't trust having a bunch in a single company stock. Especially if that stock collapsing would likely correlate with them losing their paycheck too.

here’s no world in which current shareholders don’t make fuckoff amounts of profit.

Well some of the shareholders, clearly none of the peope who had to wait for the IPO are going to make some unless they managed to sell off in the 4 days after IPO.

Beyond that, we don't know that much about the pre-IPO costs and how low it can go for them to still make out like bandits.

It's a logical outcome. The big studios are risk-averse. Why bother with something that hasn't been already 'proven', and also if they think something has gone "out of fashion", then similarly don't risk revisiting something that will make them look dated.

The pleasant creative outcomes stem from people who want to do it for the sake of doing it rather than constrained by predicted business results. It's by no means a guarantee of quality, a lot of Indie stuff sucks, but certainly being overly business minded inhibits anything 'different' coming out.

Indeed, usually a NIMBY is seen as bad because while they do want the value of the thing they reject, they just don't want to deal with the downsides personally.

Here the folks are generally already satisfied with what the existing infrastructure provides, so if there's no datacenter growth overall, that's fine by them.

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.