I believe that events like these capture the public interest much more than the countless other likely lawless actions, because the legalities of those other actions and the reasons they are that way can be complex and philosophical.

In the case of firing on this shipwreck, it is a very simple event with a very straight line you can draw from "this is the law" to "this is why there's this law" to "here's an ever-increasing cavalcade of evidence indicating clear and knowing violation of that law". The situation is simple, it involves very little philosophy beyond "murdering the helpless is a dick move", and everyone pretty much gets it. A story that simplistic is also tenaciously resistant to media spin; about all they can do is try the "dick moves make you a badass" gambit, which mostly only works on those that are anti-intellectual, provincial, and insecure, so it is only getting traction with the constituencies that would already have followed their leader off a cliff anyway.

That monkey better not dare curl one of his fingers up for that "wish"! Nothing was changed. 😂

I don't have any firsthand experience with the cameras, but I knew a guy that lived in a trailer park where they put in these particularly obnoxious speed bumps. They were always all vandalized in under a week, after which they would be replaced after increasingly long periods until they eventually stopped.

Companies and governments have budgets that can get overrun and force their decisions regardless of their desires.

At first I was concerned about these huge tech companies stealing all of human knowledge and using it to make a fortune and drive everyone that created the knowledge into poverty.

Now I see that they are stealing all of human knowledge to make LLMs, giant digital babbling talkers. It can't work how they want the way they're doing it, so it doesn't matter what data they consume. They seem to lose money on every LLM query, even if you're paying for the highest tier.

When they stop subsidizing the cost to cash in, the already lukewarm interest in LLMs will cool further as costs rise.

Shower response: I don't like that they're gobbling my data, but at least they're choking on it.

You are buying it with your personal data and granting them access to your computer. Even if you don't think that's not worth much, it is still not free. You're just paying with something other than money.

The upshot of this and a lot of the other replies I see here and elsewhere seem to suggest that one big difference between this bubble and other past ones is that with this most recent one, there is so much of the global economy now tied to the fate of this bubble that the entire financial world is colluding to delay the inevitable due to the expected severity of the consequences.

I work adjacent to software developers, and I have been hearing a lot of the same sentiments. What I don't understand, though, is the magnitude of this bubble then.

Typically, bubbles seem to form around some new market phenomenon or technology that threatens to upset the old paradigm and usher in a new boom. Those market phenomena then eventually take their place in the world based on their real value, which is nowhere near the level of the hype, but still substantial.

In this case, I am struggling to find examples of the real benefits of a lot of these AI assistant technologies. I know that there are a lot of successes in the AI realm, but not a single one I know of involves an LLM.

So, I guess my question is, "What specific LLM tools are generating profits or productivity at a substantial level well exceeding their operating costs?" If there really are none, or if the gains are only incremental, then my question becomes an incredulous, "Is this biggest in history tech bubble really composed entirely of unfounded hype?"

Be careful what you wish for. UBI assumes a small group in power will, while having all the resources in their hands, fairly distribute them to everyone and never use them as a bargaining chip to force our compliance with whatever actions they're trying to take.

The whole UBI idea seems like a trap for the general public to accept the notion that it inevitable that a small oligarchic group must have all the resources consolidated to them, to stop us from working towards a true egalitarian economy.

There is no time I am aware of in history where a large group in power distributed vast resources to the community without being compelled to do so by threat of force.

He also had to write* it.

*alternative spelling

The whole "hitting pedestrians is worth points" trope originated from Death Race 2000, I think. Still, yeah! Weird old movie.