Conceptually, I get it. Esepecially if you go with the 'DNS pinning of CA' to have a 'belt and suspenders' approach where two chains of authority must be broken, one of which inherently tied to your name.
Practically speaking, DNSSEC hasn't managed to get ubiquitous adoption. To the point where browsers started giving up and doing DNS over HTTPS to well known providers instead.
After trying for a bit, I can certainly relate to understanding little of it. It's not as concretely explained as I would like and sticks to abstract principles. So no idea about the current state of affairs.
So much better game experience, but nowhere near the cash cow of people blowing money on cosmetics in live service games and pay to win. Even super low effort mobile games will frequently milk out way more cash.
Basically the good money is with low quality content, so good quality has to come out of enthusiasm for gaming, not from board rooms.
Indeed, the boots theory of poverty. So many things are cheaper even in absolute terms if you have enough money to get things cheaper or get better things for not much more money that will way outlast the cheap stuff. Also people are more excited to just give you money when you have money (higher interest rate, even for very safe savings accounts).
Add to this that incremental improvement comes at exponentially more and more cost. So they spend ungodly amounts more in hopes that the next incremental improvement will push them over the magic line beyond where the are.
Some impressive feats but the issues holding it back from the 'replace the whole economy' sort of ambition they imagine are very stubborn. Notably it still confidently declares incorrect information (a significant volume of software developement works around by rigging auto-retries until it stumbles into 'correctness', and of course the people pumping out slop art/books aren't bound by 'correctness') and they still have no clear path to autonomous control of humanoid robotics (as crazy advanced as the online GenAI experience, they are still struggling to demonstrate even the most basic manual labor tasks).
Don't worry, they are already talking loudly about how much more "dangerous" those on-premise models are and suggesting that regulation is needed to make sure people only rent it from trusted facilities that can manage it.
Assuming your assessment of AI utility is correct for sake of discussion, it would not mean it is guaranteed to be profitable for any given company with any given strategy and spending.
Internet shopping and delivery is hugely profitable, but that's of little comfort to pets.com and webvan.
If a company more responsibly managed their spend and commitments and still reached the same utility as Anthropic, then Anthropic would never see profitability.
No.... The worst year Amazon ever had was a net loss of $1.4 Billion back in 2000. Most years in the early days they were at a loss of a few dozen million. At the time, they drew a lot of criticism for running red way longer. If Amazon ran at their worst year for 50 years, they still would have lost less money than Anthropic did.
They haven't operated at a loss in over a decade.
Yes, but if they didn't care precisely about the output, then that doesn't really matter.
Ok, but what would that look like in a way that would have mitigated this situation? Seems likely that such a system could actually exacerbate this specific scenario.
Note that if I can't readily tell if a submission has had "AI assistance" or not, then I am not particularly interested in playing detective in the pursuit of purity. So in your case it's likely I wouldn't really care if it looks reasonably curated.
But I can understand having a standing policy to cite when you just don't feel like vetting what is more obviously "slop".
Though if your submission basically advertises the AI assistant in use, I'm not a fan. If it vaguely discloses, ideally with nuance, the nature of AI assistance (without promoting specific solutions), then I'd feel better.
I am a bit disappointed in, for example, an issue I just received that could have just said "need to add an explicit requirement" but instead was a needlessly long writeup with a little robot emoji and "created by claude code" at the end. Just tell me the gist and it saves me time, I don't want an AI generated dissertation on every little thing, that takes me more work than the 'unprofessional' blurb that folks want AI to massage.
I see two ways this could happen:
They make it so you cannot run some models yourself without government approval, based on some criteria. For a random citizen, this would be harder than trying to stop piracy, and thus those willing to ignore the technical law may continue however they like, but it would be enough to block businesses from doing so. Kind of like how some software has a license that is a trap for businesses to have to pay if employees end up using it, but is widely popular among consumers that can get and use it freely. So the home market can do whatever if they really want, but the businesses and products those businesses launch can't ignore that sort of regulation so freely.
Another path is if they really get buy in that this is dangerous for mere peons to have: regulate hardware available for consumer purchase. Like no VRAM above 32GB, and nothing with the compute horsepower to go more than say 100 tok/s with a 32B model. Effectively setting a forever cap on home usage to current top-end 'consumer' and putting regulatory restrictions on beefier stuff. Consumer compute becomes just about improving power and cooling and form factor, no more expanding the capabilities beyond current top end.