While our first look at the final season of The Boys seemed to dismiss where its group of would-be heroes wound up at the end of season four, to refresh everyone's memory, things are worse than ever before. For starters, Homelander is sitting comfortably as god-king emperor of the world, with the good PR Vought used to maintain falling by the wayside, as an army of radical supes has no problem with his genocidal plans for non-supes. And, to make matters even more perilous for our heroes, Billy Butcher has some sort of killer symbiote in his body, has betrayed the crew yet again, and is on the warpath to commit his own genocide of supes. Basically, both sides of the aisle are dealing with extremes, and the most level-headed members of either camp have scattered to the wind for their own safety or have been kidnapped. But for whatever reason, the Boys are back together and are ready to finish fighting the good fight in whatever violent, gross-out way they can think of. While this trailer acts as an arbiter for the beginning of the end of The Boys as we know it, that doesn't mean Prime Video is done exploring its bloody universe. For starters, the first season of Gen V felt like lightning in a bottle, expanding The Boys in both tone and stakes with characters that weren't all assholes in a way that didn't feel like leftovers from its flagship show. Its second season, however, played a bit more like an extended epilogue to The Boys season four, a bit too much for our liking. One of which is a prequel series, Vought Rising, focusing on the halcyon days of Jensen Ackles' Soldier Boy. Another spin-off that was announced way back in 2023 will take place in Mexico, though its name and logline outside of that still remain under wraps. Understandably, in the lead-up to The Boys‘ big finale, showrunner Erik Kripke told Collider he and his crew have been in “absolute terror of becoming the thing we've been satirizing for five years.” After all, it's kind of hard to be counter-cultural and punk rock when your early-season bit making fun of Marvel Cinematic Universe films aged terribly, with The Boys expanded into its extended universe of projects. Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what's next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who. Subscribe and interact with our community, get up to date with our customised Newsletters and much more. The Amazon streamer's hopes of being anime's go-to hub feel hollow when its track record reads like a cautionary tale. Can Spider-Noir crack the case and save New York? We'll find out when the series hits Prime Video this spring. Ben Reilly is a complicated character, and making him the lead of 'Spider-Noir' only adds to that—but there's a reason for it.

First there was the iPhone 17e, then a refreshed iPad Air followed swiftly by souped-up MacBook Pros, and now, to finish things off, Apple has dropped the MacBook Neo, a bargain-basement laptop that can be yours for just $599. Seeing as this comes in bold iBook G3-like color options, sports a 16-hour battery, 13-inch Liquid Retina screen, 1080p HD webcam, and dual Spatial Audio speakers (with Dolby Atmos), all wrapped in an aluminum case that weighs just 2.7 pounds, you can well imagine that Apple is going to shift a fair few of these budget beauties. You may well walk into the Apple Store on March 11 and demand a Citrus MacBook Neo (yes, get that color), and gleefully hand over six hundred bucks secure in the knowledge you're bagging a deal, but anyone doing so can also rightfully ask themselves, “Hang on, how on Earth can Apple charge me only $599 for a new MacBook, but then demand $800 for an Apple Watch?” iPads have used Mac chips for years, but now a MacBook is running an iPhone chip. Other savings come in the form of a mechanical (not haptic) multi-touch trackpad, a non-backlit keyboard, fewer ports, and only 8 GB of RAM (non-upgradeable). When you try to figure out why the Ultra 3 costs so much more than the Neo, let alone its Watch siblings, things get trickier for Apple. Take a look at this official comparison page for the Apple Watch. If we allow ourselves to discount iterative improvements (brighter screen, better speakers, bigger battery, better GPS, etc) and concentrate on what you can only get on the Ultra and not on the Apple Watch 11 or Watch SE, we're left with just these: emergency SOS via satellite, scuba diving features, a siren, and a titanium build with sapphire crystal. That's a mighty big premium on the Ultra. They're going to tell us we're comparing apples with oranges here when looking at the Neo and Ultra. And so the prices shouldn't be comparable, because they do very different things.” Thing is, I don't think the average consumer cares about that. And they now see a bewildering price discrepancy between Apple products. Terry White, principal worldwide design and photography evangelist at Adobe, certainly does. He has posted that the Neo now proves Apple's iPad accessories are massively overpriced. “To get that same 256 GB storage on a base iPad, you're at $449 (and a slower chip),” he posted. We used to ask if an iPad could replace a laptop. Now the real question is: Why does replacing a laptop with an iPad cost $100 more?” But the price gap is huge between those models. “You charge a premium for those, simply because you can and because people will pay for it,” he says. IDC just released its Apple Watch sales estimates. “Ultra represented almost 3.5 million [of these] during the year,” Ubrani says, adding that the Ultra sales declined year over year “due to the lack of a meaningful refresh.” Still, Apple has convinced more than 8 percent of Watch buyers to hand over hundreds of dollars more for the premium model. Balbir Singh, global smartwatch analyst at Counterpoint Research, feels Apple can almost name its price for its products, especially if those products are pricier and are already in the ecosystem. "They know that they have niche adventure and athletic users that need something from Apple itself, for the Apple loyalist, the iPhone user.” Apple may be greedy here, hiking the Watch price by hundreds of dollars, but it sure isn't stupid. “They don't want to charge so much that they lose that customer to someone else, right? “Apple has seen what its competition is doing, and it doesn't want to offer something noticeably cheaper. Apple has to make sure that they're not losing customers to a rival computing platform while still being able to charge essentially as much as they can and get away with." Kyle Wiens, CEO of iFixit, is even more plain. “The spaceship in Cupertino isn't gonna pay for itself,” he says. “What's expensive in Ultra is that they are also having to spend something for the satellite connectivity. The company did, however, send a quote from Eugene Kim, Apple's vice president of Apple Watch Hardware Engineering: “Apple Watch Ultra is our most advanced Apple Watch, designed to take users from sports and adventure to the rest of their life, and help them stay active, healthy, connected, and safe, wherever they are.” If Eugene said these words out loud, rather than having them written for him, I'll eat my hat. “The 3D-printed titanium case is an expensive case to make,” Wiens adds, “but all that doesn't add up to the price that it's at. Electronics are getting more expensive right now because of memory and storage. But the watch doesn't really have much memory or storage." I think he's the only person who uses an iPad instead of a computer. Ubrani agrees Apple is making a killing on the Ultra. To make matters worse for Ultra fans, Wiens has an additional word of warning. Don't expect it to last several years, as the battery will wear out. "It's not easy to get in and replace the battery on these things.” He has good hair, fashionable jeans, Nike trail runners, carries a bright orange Helly Hansen backpack, and an iPhone and AirPods. On his wrist is, perhaps inevitably, an Apple Watch Ultra. I ask him why he went with that model compared to the base version, which is so much cheaper. This popular pro-Trump X account is apparently run by a White House staffer Squarespace Promo Code: 20% Off Annual Acuity Subscriptions LG Promo Code: 20% Off Your First Order 50% Off Doordash Promo Code For New & Existing Users WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast.

Life EV announced Thursday that its court-approved asset acquisition had been completed as part of Rad's bankruptcy process. Life EV paid $13.2 million for Rad, the high-flying startup that was once valued at $1.65 billion and branded itself as one of the largest sellers of e-bikes. “Rad Power Bikes has helped define the e-bike category in North America with its innovative products and passionate rider community,” Rob Provost, CEO of Life EV, said in a statement. Together, we will build on that trust and create new opportunities for riders nationwide.” GeekWire reached out to Life EV for details on the fate of remaining Rad employees in Seattle and the company's operations in its hometown. Rad has seven remaining stores, including its flagship headquarters store in Seattle's Ballard neighborhood as well as Berkeley, Huntington Beach, Santa Barbara, and San Diego, Calif.; Denver; and Salt Lake City. Life EV also said it intends to support Rad riders through post-closing customer programs, including honoring certain warranties and gift cards in accordance with the terms of the asset purchase agreement. In November 2023, Life EV acquired Serial 1, the in-house electric bicycle company originally started by motorcycle maker Harley-Davidson. Life EV called it an “integrated manufacturing approach” that reflects a long-term vision for “scalable operations, bringing component sourcing, assembly, quality control, inventory management, and distribution together through the broader Life EV platform.” Rad Power Bikes launched in 2015 with a direct-to-consumer model and sub-$2,000 e-bikes aimed at casual riders. Rad raised more than $300 million in 2021 and branded itself as North America's largest e-bike seller. But the momentum faded in 2022 as demand cooled and a series of missteps and macroeconomic challenges led to more than seven rounds of layoffs. The startup, originally founded by Mike Radenbaugh and Ty Collins, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in December 2025 following surprising news in November that the company was fighting for survival as it faced “significant financial challenges.” New CEO leading Rad Power Bikes in the midst of e-bike seller's bankruptcy proceedings Rad Power Bikes faces possible shutdown as it tries to survive ‘significant financial challenges' Rad Power Bikes' biggest unpaid bill is $8.3M to U.S. Customs, as tariffs squeeze the industry

But, as the trailer prominently showcases, The Testaments also sees One Battle After Another stand out, Chase Infiniti, take center stage as our hero forced to endure Aunt Lydia's bullshit. Set years after The Handmaid's Tale, two young teens, Agnes (Infinity) and Daisy (Lucy Halliday), arrive as the newest converts to a dystopian preparatory school where young women are raised to be dutiful future wives. There, Agnes and Daisy have obedience brutally instilled upon them. But, as the series logline teases, Agnes and Daisy's bond will help them trudge through and become “the catalyst that will upend their past, their present, and their future.” Decorating the rest of The Testaments cast are Mabel Li, Amy Seimetz, Brad Alexander, Rowan Blanchard, Mattea Conforti, Zarrin Darnell-Martin, Eva Foote, Isolde Ardies, Shechinah Mpumlwana, Birva Pandya, and Kira Guloien. To give The Testaments a must-watch, big-feel rollout, Hulu is dropping the first three episodes all at once on April 8. Afterwards, likely after we're all horrified and properly at the edge of our seats, the show will roll out with weekly episode drops. Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what's next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who. Subscribe and interact with our community, get up to date with our customised Newsletters and much more. Chase Infiniti and Ann Dowd star in Hulu's next adaptation set in Margaret Atwood's dystopian but eerily timely world. Samira Wiley confirms that Moira won't make an appearance in the upcoming sequel series, 'The Testaments.' Madeline Brewer's Janine sure went through a hell of a lot of hell over six seasons on Hulu's dystopian drama. A fan-favorite character returned to Gilead one last time.

Which industry has the most to gain from these products? We're living in some weird time period where value systems are regressing. More likely these companies just offered to give them some free vending machines and some office manager said sure why not. If my boss gives me a stimulant to be more productive, especially a relatively harmless one like nicotine, I would gladly take it, as I like stimulants and am an adult capable of making decisions for myself. If I didn't, I would just refuse, just how I might refuse the free coffee by boss offers me.I doubt anyone is forcing the employees to take the stimulants. Yes, but the important distinction is that its intention is to bring people together face-to-face, not isolate them to their desks for continued work. It's just Zyn, which doesn't seem that dramatically different than coffee. But maybe that's because I don't drink coffee or use nicotine But the other day I ended up vaping some melon-flavored liquid. When it was empty, I was going crazy for a few hours, I absolutely had to have more. And it didn't even have more nicotine than what I usually vape. It was just the sweet taste that had me wanting more, exactly like back in my college days when I was eating Snickers bars like no tomorrow. And most people I see vaping out in the street seem to be vaping those ultra-sweet smelling liquids. If we're talking about smoking or vaping, or nicotine pouches, sure, but mode of administration and how quickly it peaks in your bloodstream cannot be hand-waved away like that. Then surely you have some evidence, especially that caffeine is more addictive, rather than "hand-waving it away" via personal anecdote? Because a web search returns a list of contrary sources as long as my arm.But, hell, if we are trading stories, I dipped snuff for 30 years and I've consumed coffee since middle school. Quitting tobacco, OTOH, that was tough, with multiple starts and stops until success. But, hell, if we are trading stories, I dipped snuff for 30 years and I've consumed coffee since middle school. Quitting tobacco, OTOH, that was tough, with multiple starts and stops until success. I'm not a doctor though so while I might sound sure it's based on what I've read on the topic over the many years.Edit : rightly corrected its not just heating and burning, its tobacco and others in general. I'm not encouraging anyone to use these things, but we should only make claims that are based on evidence. Your final statement doesn't really add value without knowing that, unless you agree that we shouldn't assume other people are actually people, and not lizards in people suits until they prove, definitively, otherwise. I realize the risk as GLP long term use is untested, but in my case it's that; or deal with inevitable health problems from high BP and being only moderately overweight.I don't see a good reason for nicotine products. I don't see a good reason for nicotine products. I'm saying nicotine pouches are the tobacco industry's successor to vapes in the way vapes were their successor to cigarettes and some conservatism is warranted in light of that. Or like how every 10-15 years the evidence of health effects of some ubiquitous plastic grows too heavy and 3M comes out with a new one to replace it and the cycle repeats. The timing as I remember it matches up with ACA passing (optional) and going into effect (mandatory) so may have something to do with health insurer costs related to that. But I don't know enough about it to guess more, just a suspicion. Are the Palantir headquarters inside an active war zone? It too stresses the heart mildly, and can aggravate reflux a lot, but overall it's significantly safer than any tobacco product. You can also eat more of it if as needed.The only sane time to take pure nicotine might be if someone is dying from Covid, their lungs are collapsing, and one desperately needs a daytime breathing boost. The only sane time to take pure nicotine might be if someone is dying from Covid, their lungs are collapsing, and one desperately needs a daytime breathing boost. Note that its strength can build up over days, so do not exceed the amount taken by more than 1 square a week. Overuse can risk a high heart rate and insomnia. I remember biohacking being mentioned in the late aughts, if not earlier, and it's referenced as being part of SV culture in the 2012 novel Mr. Penumbra's 24-Hour Bookstore [0].0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Penumbra%27s_24-Hour_Books... In September 2025, Sesh raised $40 million in funding from investors including 8VC, a firm co-founded by Peter Thiel.David Renteln is the ceo of Lucy. I couldn't find a direct link between Thiel and Lucy, but it looks like Thiel has been friends with Renteln for a while and invested in Renteln's Soylent. I couldn't find a direct link between Thiel and Lucy, but it looks like Thiel has been friends with Renteln for a while and invested in Renteln's Soylent. Nicotine (without tobacco e.g. Zyn or gum) does seem to have some nootropic-ish properties but it's vastly inferior to a lot of other things and has major addiction/tolerance problems. It's not a great performance enhancer for anything but very sporadic use.

Which industry has the most to gain from these products? We're living in some weird time period where value systems are regressing. The timing as I remember it matches up with ACA passing (optional) and going into effect (mandatory) so may have something to do with health insurer costs related to that. But I don't know enough about it to guess more, just a suspicion. More likely these companies just offered to give them some free vending machines and some office manager said sure why not. If my boss gives me a stimulant to be more productive, especially a relatively harmless one like nicotine, I would gladly take it, as I like stimulants and am an adult capable of making decisions for myself. If I didn't, I would just refuse, just how I might refuse the free coffee by boss offers me.I doubt anyone is forcing the employees to take the stimulants. Yes, but the important distinction is that its intention is to bring people together face-to-face, not isolate them to their desks for continued work. It's just Zyn, which doesn't seem that dramatically different than coffee. But maybe that's because I don't drink coffee or use nicotine But the other day I ended up vaping some melon-flavored liquid. When it was empty, I was going crazy for a few hours, I absolutely had to have more. And it didn't even have more nicotine than what I usually vape. It was just the sweet taste that had me wanting more, exactly like back in my college days when I was eating Snickers bars like no tomorrow. And most people I see vaping out in the street seem to be vaping those ultra-sweet smelling liquids. If we're talking about smoking or vaping, or nicotine pouches, sure, but mode of administration and how quickly it peaks in your bloodstream cannot be hand-waved away like that. Because a web search returns a list of contrary sources as long as my arm.But, hell, if we are trading stories, I dipped snuff for 30 years and I've consumed coffee since middle school. Quitting tobacco, OTOH, that was tough, with multiple starts and stops until success. But, hell, if we are trading stories, I dipped snuff for 30 years and I've consumed coffee since middle school. Quitting tobacco, OTOH, that was tough, with multiple starts and stops until success. Then surely you have some evidence, especially that caffeine is more addictive, rather than "hand-waving it away" via personal anecdote? I'm not a doctor though so while I might sound sure it's based on what I've read on the topic over the many years.Edit : rightly corrected its not just heating and burning, its tobacco and others in general. I'm not encouraging anyone to use these things, but we should only make claims that are based on evidence. Your final statement doesn't really add value without knowing that, unless you agree that we shouldn't assume other people are actually people, and not lizards in people suits until they prove, definitively, otherwise. I realize the risk as GLP long term use is untested, but in my case it's that; or deal with inevitable health problems from high BP and being only moderately overweight.I don't see a good reason for nicotine products. I don't see a good reason for nicotine products. Are the Palantir headquarters inside an active war zone? I remember biohacking being mentioned in the late aughts, if not earlier, and it's referenced as being part of SV culture in the 2012 novel Mr. Penumbra's 24-Hour Bookstore [0].0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Penumbra%27s_24-Hour_Books... It too stresses the heart mildly, and can aggravate reflux a lot, but overall it's significantly safer than any tobacco product. You can also eat more of it if as needed.The only sane time to take pure nicotine might be if someone is dying from Covid, their lungs are collapsing, and one desperately needs a daytime breathing boost. The only sane time to take pure nicotine might be if someone is dying from Covid, their lungs are collapsing, and one desperately needs a daytime breathing boost. Note that its strength can build up over days, so do not exceed the amount taken by more than 1 square a week. Overuse can risk a high heart rate and insomnia. In September 2025, Sesh raised $40 million in funding from investors including 8VC, a firm co-founded by Peter Thiel.David Renteln is the ceo of Lucy. I couldn't find a direct link between Thiel and Lucy, but it looks like Thiel has been friends with Renteln for a while and invested in Renteln's Soylent. I couldn't find a direct link between Thiel and Lucy, but it looks like Thiel has been friends with Renteln for a while and invested in Renteln's Soylent. Nicotine (without tobacco e.g. Zyn or gum) does seem to have some nootropic-ish properties but it's vastly inferior to a lot of other things and has major addiction/tolerance problems. It's not a great performance enhancer for anything but very sporadic use.

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. Update - March 5: This bundle is so popular it has now sold out. However, there's a $999 bundle live at Newegg with the same processor, RAM, and an MSI Mag X870. A great alternative and actually cheaper, owing to the slightly less premium motherboard. More Newegg bundle goodness today: a new deal pairs a premium Asus ROG Strix X870E-E Gaming WiFi Motherboard with 32GB of Corsair Vengeance RGB DDR5-6400 RAM and AMD's Ryzen 7 9850X3D CPU for $ 1,109.99. If you're going to use the fastest gaming processor on the market for a high-spec gaming PC, it's good to pair it with a premium, feature-rich motherboard. Excellent voltage regulation and 18+2+2 power solution rated for 110A per stage. This kit offers 2x 16GB paired sticks for a total of 32GB of DDR5 RAM at 6400MT/s, a sweet spot speed for AMD processors on the AM5 platform. Plus, any purchase also comes with two "free" gifts: an Asus TUF Gaming M4 Air lightweight gaming mouse ($55.99) and a copy of the Crimson Desert ($70) video game. This Newegg bundle combines the fastest gaming CPU, AMD's Ryzen 7 9850X3D, with an MSI MAG X870 Tomahawk WiFi motherboard, and 32GB of Corsair Vengeance DDR5-6400 Memory, for the start of a new gaming PC build. This Newegg bundle combines the fastest gaming CPU, AMD's Ryzen 7 9850X3D, an Asus ROG Strix X870E-E Gaming WiFi motherboard, and 32GB of Corsair Vengeance DDR5-6400 Memory. Plus, any purchase also comes with two free gifts: an Asus TUF Gaming M4 Air lightweight gaming mouse and a copy of the Crimson Desert video game. Perfectly complementing the above duo of components is AMD's Ryzen 7 9850X3D CPU. In this current climate, all RAM kits are hitting extortionate price highs. Depending on the brand name and performance, faster memory kits with tighter timings can cost significantly more. If you need RAM for your system, get it sooner, rather than later, as there is currently no end in sight to this financial burden on PC enthusiasts. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. Stewart Bendle is a deals and coupon writer at Tom's Hardware. Tom's Hardware is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher.

Founder Summit 2026 in Boston: Don't miss ticket savings of up to $300. In a bid to stave off a major investigation by the European Commission, Meta said on Thursday that it would allow AI companies to offer their chatbots on WhatsApp via its business API for the next 12 months in Europe. Meta says it will allow general-purpose AI chatbot providers to offer their services on WhatsApp for a fee, which ranges from €0.0490 to €0.1323 per “non-template message,” depending on the country. Considering the fact that conversations with AI assistants usually comprise dozens of messages, the bill could prove costly for third-party service providers. The policy change went into effect on January 15, spurring several AI assistant providers to complain to regulators that it was disrupting their business and the decision was anti-competitive. For instance, a retailer running an AI-powered customer service bot that sends templatized messages won't be barred from using the API. Only AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, or Poke are prohibited from being offered via the API. The decision follows a similar move by the company in January, when it started allowing developers to tap its API to offer their chatbots in Italy. “The AI space is highly competitive, and people have access to the services of their choice in any number of ways, including app stores, search engines, email services, partnership integrations, and operating systems,” the company previously told TechCrunch. You can contact or verify outreach from Ram by emailing ram.iyer@techcrunch.com. Planning your next launch?TechCrunch Founder Summit 2026 delivers tactical playbooks and direct access to 1,000+ founders and investors who are building, backing, and closing.Register by March 13 to save up to $300. Jensen Huang says Nvidia is pulling back from OpenAI and Anthropic, but his explanation raises more questions than it answers Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei calls OpenAI's messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies,' report says ChatGPT uninstalls surged by 295% after DoD deal Users are ditching ChatGPT for Claude — here's how to make the switch MyFitnessPal has acquired Cal AI, the viral calorie app built by teens

Amazon Web Services is expanding into AI for healthcare, launching a new agentic system that can handle patient calls, document clinical visits and automatically generate billing codes. It will compete in part with rival Microsoft, which acquired Nuance for $19.7 billion in 2022 and has embedded its DAX Copilot ambient documentation tool into major electronic health record systems. The idea is to “not provide just point solutions, point tools, or a collection of capabilities, but think end-to-end about what is the customer problem, and how can we solve it,” said Rajiv Chopra, AWS vice president of Health AI and Life Sciences, in an interview this week. Early users of the technology include UC San Diego Health, which handles 3.2 million patient interactions annually; One Medical, the Amazon-owned primary care practice that has used the ambient documentation capabilities across a million visits; and Netsmart, which provides EHR software to more than 1,300 community-based healthcare organizations. Amazon's move could double as a litmus test for AI adoption in healthcare, where institutions have traditionally been slow to adopt new technology. However, hospitals continue to cite concerns about data privacy, the difficulty of integrating AI tools into existing workflows, and unclear return on investment. Amazon's new product has five core capabilities: automated patient verification, intelligent appointment scheduling, pre-visit summaries for clinicians, ambient documentation that transcribes and drafts clinical notes during the visit, and automated medical coding for billing. It integrates natively with Epic, the largest U.S. electronic health records system, and connects to other EHRs through data integration partners. Amazon Connect Health comes from AWS's Applied AI Solutions group, led by Senior Vice President Colleen Aubrey, which is focused on building finished applications for specific industries rather than selling raw cloud infrastructure and tools to developers. Aubrey, who previously built Amazon's advertising business, said at AWS re:Invent in December that her team is putting “agentic AI at the heart of everything we do,” describing the technology as “AI teammates” that can work autonomously on behalf of businesses. Separately, the group oversees Amazon's Just Walk Out retail technology and is developing agentic AI tools for supply chain planning and life sciences. A ‘righteous' shift in patient power: At Microsoft alumni event, execs foresee AI reinventing healthcare AI goes from tool to teammate: Amazon Web Services SVP Colleen Aubrey on the dawn of agentic work

Amazon Web Services is expanding into AI for healthcare, launching a new agentic system that can handle patient calls, document clinical visits and automatically generate billing codes. It will compete in part with rival Microsoft, which acquired Nuance for $19.7 billion in 2022 and has embedded its DAX Copilot ambient documentation tool into major electronic health record systems. The idea is to “not provide just point solutions, point tools, or a collection of capabilities, but think end-to-end about what is the customer problem, and how can we solve it,” said Rajiv Chopra, AWS vice president of Health AI and Life Sciences, in an interview this week. Early users of the technology include UC San Diego Health, which handles 3.2 million patient interactions annually; One Medical, the Amazon-owned primary care practice that has used the ambient documentation capabilities across a million visits; and Netsmart, which provides EHR software to more than 1,300 community-based healthcare organizations. Amazon's move could double as a litmus test for AI adoption in healthcare, where institutions have traditionally been slow to adopt new technology. However, hospitals continue to cite concerns about data privacy, the difficulty of integrating AI tools into existing workflows, and unclear return on investment. Amazon's new product has five core capabilities: automated patient verification, intelligent appointment scheduling, pre-visit summaries for clinicians, ambient documentation that transcribes and drafts clinical notes during the visit, and automated medical coding for billing. It integrates natively with Epic, the largest U.S. electronic health records system, and connects to other EHRs through data integration partners. Amazon Connect Health comes from AWS's Applied AI Solutions group, led by Senior Vice President Colleen Aubrey, which is focused on building finished applications for specific industries rather than selling raw cloud infrastructure and tools to developers. Aubrey, who previously built Amazon's advertising business, said at AWS re:Invent in December that her team is putting “agentic AI at the heart of everything we do,” describing the technology as “AI teammates” that can work autonomously on behalf of businesses. Separately, the group oversees Amazon's Just Walk Out retail technology and is developing agentic AI tools for supply chain planning and life sciences. A ‘righteous' shift in patient power: At Microsoft alumni event, execs foresee AI reinventing healthcare AI goes from tool to teammate: Amazon Web Services SVP Colleen Aubrey on the dawn of agentic work

Founder Summit 2026 in Boston: Don't miss ticket savings of up to $300. While most of the venture world has been chasing AI deals, Max Hodak — the co-founder and former president of Neuralink — has been working on a startup that claims to be on the verge of being the first brain-computer interface company to get a product to market. Hodak's startup, Science Corporation, said Wednesday morning that it has raised $230 million in a Series C funding round. In the short-term, Science Corp. is betting on PRIMA, a chip said to be smaller than a grain of rice that, when implanted in the eye, works with camera-equipped glasses to restore functional vision to people suffering from advanced macular degeneration. The startup hasn't fully developed the tech itself: It bought PRIMA's assets in 2024 from French outfit Pixium Vision, refined it, and completed trials that Pixium had started. But the clinical results Science has since generated are its own. “To my knowledge, this is the first time that restoration of the ability to fluently read has ever been definitively shown in blind patients,” Hodak told TechCrunch in an interview in December. The company told TechCrunch that Germany is likely to be its first market, as the country has established pathways for granting early access to new medical technologies. Science Corp. is also expanding its PRIMA trial program to include Stargardt disease and retinitis pigmentosa, inherited retinal conditions that are leading causes of vision loss in young adults. The new capital will be used to fund commercialization of PRIMA, as well as to support the startup's broader research portfolio. This includes a biohybrid neural interface program that involves growing engineered neurons from stem cells onto a waffle-like device that sits on the brain's surface and forms biological connections with existing neural circuits. There's also a new business line inside Science called Vessel: An organ preservation platform that aims to develop miniaturized perfusion technology so that organs can be transported on commercial flights or maintained by patients at home, rather than in ICU suites. Investors in the Series C include a mix of new and earlier backers, including Lightspeed Venture Partners, Khosla Ventures, Y Combinator and Quiet Capital. IQT, the nonprofit investment firm that focuses on solutions that can be used by government organizations like the FBI and CIA, also invested. The round brings Science Corp.'s total funding to $490 million. Update: This story originally reflected the company's pre-money, not post-money, valuation. Jensen Huang says Nvidia is pulling back from OpenAI and Anthropic, but his explanation raises more questions than it answers Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei calls OpenAI's messaging around military deal ‘straight up lies,' report says Users are ditching ChatGPT for Claude — here's how to make the switch MyFitnessPal has acquired Cal AI, the viral calorie app built by teens

Founder Summit 2026 in Boston: Don't miss ticket savings of up to $300. While most of the venture world has been chasing AI deals, Max Hodak — the co-founder and former president of Neuralink — has been working on a startup that claims to be on the verge of being the first brain-computer interface company to get a product to market. Hodak's startup, Science Corporation, said Wednesday morning that it has raised $230 million in a Series C funding round. In the short-term, Science Corp. is betting on PRIMA, a chip said to be smaller than a grain of rice that, when implanted in the eye, works with camera-equipped glasses to restore functional vision to people suffering from advanced macular degeneration. The startup hasn't fully developed the tech itself: It bought PRIMA's assets in 2024 from French outfit Pixium Vision, refined it, and completed trials that Pixium had started. But the clinical results Science has since generated are its own. The company told TechCrunch that Germany is likely to be its first market, as the country has established pathways for granting early access to new medical technologies. Science Corp. is also expanding its PRIMA trial program to include Stargardt disease and retinitis pigmentosa, inherited retinal conditions that are leading causes of vision loss in young adults. The new capital will be used to fund commercialization of PRIMA, as well as to support the startup's broader research portfolio. This includes a biohybrid neural interface program that involves growing engineered neurons from stem cells onto a waffle-like device that sits on the brain's surface and forms biological connections with existing neural circuits. There's also a new business line inside Science called Vessel: An organ preservation platform that aims to develop miniaturized perfusion technology so that organs can be transported on commercial flights or maintained by patients at home, rather than in ICU suites. Investors in the Series C include a mix of new and earlier backers, including Lightspeed Venture Partners, Khosla Ventures, Y Combinator and Quiet Capital. IQT, the nonprofit investment firm that focuses on solutions that can be used by government organizations like the FBI and CIA, also invested. Update: This story originally reflected the company's pre-money, not post-money, valuation. Hardware testing startup Nominal hits $1B valuation, raises $155M in 10 months Roblox launches real-time AI chat rephrasing to filter out banned language FYI: Impersonators are (still) targeting companies with fake TechCrunch outreach EXCLUSIVE: Luma launches creative AI agents powered by its new ‘Unified Intelligence' models Google says half of all zero-days it tracked in 2025 targeted buggy enterprise tech Cursor is rolling out a new kind of agentic coding tool

This new niche is made specifically for mixed-terrain runs, a hybrid that splices off-road toughness with on-road performance. These do-it-all shoes work, whether you're tackling less technical off-road terrain or warming up on your way to the trailhead. If you regularly log mixed-terrain miles across compacted gravel paths, forest roads, hardpack trails, and regular old roads, these shoes might well be the weapon you've been looking for. In testing, some of them have also proved to be pretty good at “keeping the roads open” when the tougher winter conditions hit. We've logged hundreds of miles in the latest gravel shoes from brands big and small, to bring you our expert pick of the best gravel shoes you can buy right now. If you're searching for a mid-weight, multitalented workhorse for mixed terrain, the Aero Blaze 3 GRVL crams in all that capability at an affordable price. There's also some extra reinforcement around the toe box. But it compresses nicely underfoot to take the edge off firmer terrain, and the lower weight adds some welcome agility when you want to move fast and light. I tested the Blaze 3 GRVL across a wide range of surfaces, from wet asphalt and hard, compacted mud trail to stony park paths and even some dry meadows. I experienced a lovely rolling ease that just made me want to log more miles. As one of the cheaper gravel shoes, this shoe is big bang for your bucks. Sometimes “sustainable” midsoles underperform against their petrochemical-based rivals, but this PEBA-like foam serves up a good energy and a lively, fun ride that strides seamlessly from road to light trails. It's not as cushioned as the Salomon Aero Glide 4 GRVL, but you get a regular cushioned daily trainer energy with grip that makes it easy to transition from road miles to off-road terrain. The 2 mm lugs grip well on wet roads, hardpack dry dirt, and gravel, but they won't handle mud, steep, and slippery or very soft terrain as well as your deeper-lugged traditional trail running shoes. The H1 is also brilliantly light, which is something that trail and gravel shoes sometimes struggle with and makes the road performance even better. Finally, the H1 has a unique dual-lacing setup that combines regular lacing and quick lacing to help you adjust lockdown separately in forefoot and mid foot. In theory, this is a good thing if your feet swell during ultras and you need more room as the run goes on, but I found it a bit fiddly and it won't be everyone's cup of tea. But it's still one of the firmer gravel shoes I tested. The Promorph has a steeply curved midsole that means you'll also need to like highly rockered shoes. You can almost feel the fulcrum point where you tip forward in your stride, and it's not going to feel natural to everyone. The outsole set deploy loads of little 2.2-mm lugs, which means are fine for switching between dry trail and tarmac and running in good conditions, but struggles when things get more testing on mud, technical slippy rocky terrain, or wet grass. The uppers are soft, flexible, and airy, but there's not a lot of toe-stubbing protection. This feels more like a traditional trail shoe. I used them fresh out of the box for a two-hour run with no trouble. I also like that it's narrow and compact enough to let you pick your way through rocks and more cluttered routes with precision. Overall, this is a relatively lightweight, agile shoe with balanced cushioning and impact protection that suits lighter trails and less technical, rolling or flat terrain. It also doesn't look out of place at the shop when you're in line to get a post-run coffee. The eagle-eyed will spot that the Inov8 Traifly V2 has deeper lugs than you'd usually find on a gravel shoe, but this lower-stack shoe is designed for running on rocky ground. Toe stubbers also get some extra protection from welcome upper overlays. The Trailfly V2 are definitely for runners who tend to prefer a firmer, more responsive feel underfoot, rather than high levels of soft cushion. When you step off road, that lower midsole offers plenty of ground feel, supporting faster foot turnover rather than heavy plodding. Sturdy hiking shoe specialist Keen has recently set its sights on trail runners. Its latest running shoe, the Roam, is an adaptive hike-inspired trail runner built for everything including gravel, dirt, and the sidewalk.​ When it comes to performance, the Roam is closer to a sedan than a sports car. But it's nicely balanced, not too soft, responsive, and reliably stable. I found it best for slower miles, running with my head up enjoying the scenery rather than trying to set records. The slightly deeper multidirectional lug 3-mm lugs offered good reliable grip on the tamer trails and even coped with short bursts over wet cobblestones and a bit of top surface River Thames mud here in London. The Roam is also built to last, with robust uppers and a midsole that looks like it'll happily eat over 500 miles and be hungry for more. We have a more detailed discussion on whether you should wear boots or trail runners for hiking here. HOKA's max-stacked Rocket X Trail combines road race shoe energy with boosted grip from a 3-mm lugged outsole. If you're looking for a fast shoe to go on the attack, this is it. In testing, I laced up the Rocket X Trail and ran 3 hours (just short of 19 miles) fresh out of the box, across roads, forest gravel trails, some grass and through some serious water. It delivered efficiency and energy whether I was moving at marathon pace or with heavier, tired, ragged footfalls in the latter miles. The rockered, supercritical midsole uses HOKA's liveliest foam, similar to those you find in its race-ready road shoes, along with a carbon plate. It's also highly cushioned, so you will sacrifice a lot of ground feel for that big stack springy softness. But on open, flat, runnable mixed terrain, it's excellent. The lightweight uppers have a race-shoe-ready feel and after running through ankle-deep flooded sections, they shed water really quickly. This is a pricey road-to-trail shoe; it's versatile and there's plenty of winter road potential, too. History aside, this do-it-all runner has really impressed me, mainly because it feels like a classic running shoe with the benefit of hefty lugs and waterproofing. That road running feel comes courtesy of the 9.5-mm drop, which is closer to traditional road running geometry than a trail or hiking shoe. Out on the trails they feel smooth, cushioned, and enjoyable. Not especially fast, but that's not an issue for me, and I appreciate the Gore-Tex on damp runs, though the liner will make your feet sweat. If conditions are filthy and you're racing, I'd rather get wet feet, but for everyday runs across mixed terrain, having dry feet is a bonus. I found it soft and springy enough to rival some of the top daily training road shoes. When you hit light off-road and uneven terrain, it still offers control and the chevron Contagrip outsole kicks in for confident traction. It's much softer underfoot than a traditional trail shoe. I'm not a huge fan of the quick lacing set up. It's heavier than the Aero Blaze GRVL 3 (my previous favorite gravel shoe) but you're getting a little more protection from the bigger midsole, which was very welcome for runs longer than two hours. And the new All Terrain Running (ATR) model takes the core DNA of that fast-edged daily trainer—a big stack of high-energy Lightstrike Pro foam and lightweight mesh uppers—and gives it more year-round and multi-terrain versatility. But it now adds a water repellent ripstop woven mesh upper and a Continental rubber outsole with 1.5-mm lugs for better off-road and winter run credentials. I tested it over a mix of road, compacted gravel, muddy tracks, grass, and forest floor. The shallower lugs grip well on wet roads and park paths, but struggle if you stray onto muddier paths or anything steep and slippery. Of all the gravel shoes, this is probably the one that most resembles a road shoe tweaked to go off-road. The extra water repellency was useful for keeping my feet drier over grassy sections but you don't get the boosted protection of a full GORE-TEX waterproof shoe. This is a good mixed terrain shoe for runners who want a more durable, grippier alternative to the standard EVO SL, or a daily trainer that doesn't need to be shelved when winter hits. WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast.

By unanimous vote, TerraPower, a Nuclear Power company founded and chaired by Bill Gates, just reached a major milestone by receiving the most important federal permit: clearance to build a commercial nuclear reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming, scheduled to start operating in 2031. But while TerraPower's Natrium sodium-cooled fast reactor can now at least be constructed, it won't put power into the Wyoming energy grid without high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HALEU), which is only made in commercial quantities by a company called Techsnabexport, which is a subsidiary of another company called Rosatom, which is owned by the Russian state. This has been presenting a problem ever since 2022 when Russia invaded mainland Ukraine. At that point, “it became very clear, for a whole set of reasons — moral reasons as well as commercial reasons — that using Russian fuel is no longer an option for us,” TerraPower spokesman Jeff Navin told WyoFile. But Hallmark told me in 2024 that alternative suppliers “are expected to develop similar capacity as demand grows,” and that Terrapower believes a solution will materialize in time for the project to stay on track. Filling the gap will involve “downblending”—or converting highly concentrated weapons-grade uranium into relatively low-concentration HALEU. This literally means dismantling warheads, melting the uranium, and rejiggering the concentration of the crucial fissile isotope.It is, of course, unsustainable for commercial power plants to be fueled by the guts of the aging U.S. nuclear stockpile, and a real supply chain for HALEU has to exist if TerraPower's plant is actually going to operate.In the short term, TerraPower needs enough fuel from early sources like downblending to load its reactor for the first time, and then it can focus on staying online. One report says it needs about 150 metric tons of the fuel to run from 2028 through 2037—roughly 15 metric tons per year on average.But according to Reuters, there's only one U.S. company actually attempting to make HALEU by enriching uranium rather than downblending: Ohio's Centrus Energy. But Centrus was projecting 900 kilograms per year in 2024—by my rough math that's about 6% of what Terrapower's Kemmerer plant will need per year. As of last month, ASP was hoping to build a HALEU plant soon. There's not enough fuel for that reactor—unless of course the war in Ukraine ends, and Russia-U.S. relations get patched up in a hurry—but there are still five years between now and then, and a whole lot is riding on this. Generating nuclear fuel has always forced people to move mountains. Gizmodo reached out to TerraPower for a statement, or additional information about any as-yet unreported sources of HALEU. "I had to leave my marriage," Melinda Gates told NPR after being asked about the newly released emails. Gates wrote, "these days, my optimism comes with footnotes." So how about watching a cute video instead? President Trump is in there too, but you could probably guess that by now. Ahead of COP30, Gates calls for a shift in focus away from near-term emissions goals. Bill Gates and Peter Thiel are also mentioned.

The project could eventually be sold to customers and would put OpenAI in direct competition with one of its biggest investors. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. OpenAI is developing its own code repository platform as an alternative to Microsoft's GitHub, according to a report from The Information. The project was prompted by a rise in GitHub outages that left OpenAI engineers unable to commit or collaborate on code for stretches of up to several hours, two people working at large GitHub customers told the publication.The project is still in early stages and probably won't be completed for months, a person with knowledge of it told The Information. GitHub's reliability has degraded noticeably over the past year, following an overhaul of its infrastructure. GitHub CTO Vladimir Fedorov told employees in an October memo that the platform would migrate all of its software to Microsoft Azure within two years, calling the move "existential" to meet the demands of AI-powered tools such as GitHub Copilot. In early February, a four-hour outage was traced to an underlying Azure problem. "GitHub reported a 58% year-over-year increase in incidents during the first half of 2025, rising from 69 cases to 109 — with 17 classified as "major" — totaling over 100 hours of disruption, according to a mid-year report from GitProtect.If OpenAI does sell the platform commercially, particularly bundled with its Codex coding agents, it will mark a direct competitive move against Microsoft. Microsoft currently holds roughly 27% of OpenAI, and acquired GitHub in 2018 for $7.5 billion. OpenAI has already encroached on other Microsoft territory: It's reportedly developing ChatGPT features that overlap with Office applications for document collaboration and presentation editing.Building internal code repositories is not unusual for large tech companies. An OpenAI commercial offering would be a different proposition — though losing OpenAI as a customer would be mostly symbolic for GitHub, given its tens of millions of paying users, according to the source from The Information. Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. Although his background is in legal, he has a personal interest in all things tech, especially hardware and microelectronics, and anything regulatory. Tom's Hardware is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher.

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. Memory and chip constraints are leading the company to think of interesting new products — a new RTX 5050 with 9GB of VRAM seems to be in the works, according to leaker @Zed__Wang. According to the tweet, this new RTX 5050 will adopt 28 Gbps GDDR7 memory chips in favor of the existing 20 Gbps GDDR6 modules. The VRAM capacity will be upped from 8GB to 9GB, but the bus width will be cut down from 128-bit to just 96-bit. The current spec translates to 320 GB/s of bandwidth, and the updated spec will result in 336 GB/s bandwidth, which is a 5% increase. The leaker goes on to mention that Nvidia could build 12GB variants of the RTX 5050 and 5060 with 3GB GDDR7 chips, but perhaps the company isn't concerned with value maximization like that, especially not in these times. Clock speed differences (if any) will become public knowledge as we near the potential release of this SKU. RTX5060 GB205 incomingNV has jammed AIC with 5060Ti 8G, and later realized Oh shit, no GB206 for 5060. And here comes the solution: 5060 based on GB205. Apparently, Nvidia has told AIBs to focus on the 8GB RTX 5060 Ti, which has led to a shortage of GB206 dies for RTX 5060 SKUs. Otherwise, the RTX 5070 has a 12V-2x6 connector and the GB205 die inside features 6,144 CUDA cores — those would be reduced to 3,840 CUDA cores for an RTX 5060. Moreover, the bus width on the GB205 is 192-bit and that would also go down, to 128-bit, in order to match an RTX 5060. Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. Hassam Nasir is a die-hard hardware enthusiast with years of experience as a tech editor and writer, focusing on detailed CPU comparisons and general hardware news. When he's not working, you'll find him bending tubes for his ever-evolving custom water-loop gaming rig or benchmarking the latest CPUs and GPUs just for fun. Tom's Hardware is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York,

It's also going to pull in some new ones, especially those that can't stomach the cost of an alternative, like Garmin's Fenix 8 Pro. I tested it, and given my previous experiences with watches like the Suunto 9 and Suunto 7, I kept my expectations low. It was a Suunto with some unexpected design charm. Strong launches continued with the Suunto Race and Suunto Run ($199), but the Vertical that brought Suunto back into the conversation of a fitness tracker worthy of both your money and wrist space. The Vertical 2 has a big battery, a ton of sports modes, and finally made the hardware and software upgrades to bring the Vertical in line with outdoor watches from Apple, Garmin, and Coros. The updates have paid off, but Suunto now has to contend with the fact that there's just a lot of competition in this particular market category. The Suunto Vertical 2 is hefty, but it's manageable. To put that weight into context, the Apple Watch Ultra 3 weighs just over 2 oz. It's always pleasing to see an array of physical buttons, and you get sizable ones too. You're not going to miss these wide flat ones even when picking the pace up. The silicone strap has a nice stretch to it and while the button clasp is a bit awkward to get into place, this watch does not budge. This replaces the dull, albeit very visible, memory-in-pixel (MIP) display. Suunto also ditched the solar charging that did require spending a significant amount of time outside to reap its battery benefits. Adding AMOLED screens to outdoor watches has been contentious. The older MIP displays are just more power-efficient. Still, even if you're putting its tracking and mapping features to use, you're not going to be reaching for the charger every few days. After two hours of tracking in optimal GPS mode, the battery only dropped by 2 to 3 percent. A more streamlined set of smartwatch features helps reserve battery for when it really matters. Unfortunately, I probably got better battery life because you don't get phone notifications or responses if it's paired to an iPhone instead of an Android. There's also no onboard music player, but you do get a pretty slick set of music playback controls that are accessible during tracking. However, Suunto doesn't shortchange you when it comes to sports modes. There's over 100, with core ones dedicated to running, cycling, and swimming. You can go free diving, quickly access a digital compass, or check storm alerts. There's plenty here, you just might need to spend some time getting to know what this watch is truly capable of. This is a watch with multiband positioning technology, joining the many other watches that are starting to drop the old single-band setups, although you can still opt for single-band here to conserve battery. The first Vertical was a good showcase for multiband support and how it can boost positioning accuracy near tall buildings or traipsing through heavily built up wooded areas. The offline maps and navigation tools you have at your disposal are a lot nicer to use on the new color screen. The mapping refresh rate isn't as jarring as it can be on other outdoor watches, while the software sitting beneath the touchscreen runs much smoother than it did on its predecessor. While it doesn't match Garmin for the level of mapping modes and settings, it's still more than capable. You do have to drop the watch back on the charger if you want to load more maps, however. Then I had to make do with simpler navigation support while abroad. I struggle to get reliable heart rate data from big watches like this. I've been wearing it for all of my workouts alongside a heart rate monitor chest strap and found that both the average and maximum heart rate readings from the Vertical 2 varied significantly during less intense workouts. If you want to use the Vertical 2 as a training tool, you can follow Suunto's proprietary training plans, and the watch is also compatible with apps like TrainingPeaks. There's some pretty standard insights to guide you into making better decisions about training volume or days to train, with recovery advice seemingly in tune with how I was feeling. The biggest compliment I can give the Suunto Vertical 2 is that I wasn't desperate to take it off. My main issue is that in addition to the Run, Suunto has another very similar watch. It has a similar feature set, can deliver an equally great performance and costs a similar amount, though you will miss out on the flashlight and better battery life. I'm not sure Suunto needs both of these watches. Garmin does still have the more complete adventure smartwatch in the Fenix 8, along with better software and better battery life. It costs a lot more than the Vertical 2 though. If you want something that can cover everything from diving to multiday hikes, this is worth considering. WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast.

Alaska and Norway understood something critical when oil was discovered: if you don't assert collective ownership of the resource before private companies capture all the value, you never will. Norway built the largest sovereign wealth fund on earth. Both were acts of people saying "this belongs to us, and we deserve a return on its extraction. "We are in exactly that window right now with AI. The resource is being extracted at an incredible pace and almost all the value is flowing to a handful of companies. The longer people wait to assert sovereign ownership over the collective intelligence that makes AI possible, the harder it becomes.If you think this is crazy, ask yourself what's actually crazier: demanding a share of the value built on your collective labor, or watching trillions of dollars get extracted from it and saying nothing.the idea of Alaskans getting a check just for existing sounded crazy too, right up until it didn't. We are in exactly that window right now with AI. The resource is being extracted at an incredible pace and almost all the value is flowing to a handful of companies. The longer people wait to assert sovereign ownership over the collective intelligence that makes AI possible, the harder it becomes.If you think this is crazy, ask yourself what's actually crazier: demanding a share of the value built on your collective labor, or watching trillions of dollars get extracted from it and saying nothing.the idea of Alaskans getting a check just for existing sounded crazy too, right up until it didn't. If you think this is crazy, ask yourself what's actually crazier: demanding a share of the value built on your collective labor, or watching trillions of dollars get extracted from it and saying nothing.the idea of Alaskans getting a check just for existing sounded crazy too, right up until it didn't. the idea of Alaskans getting a check just for existing sounded crazy too, right up until it didn't. You can't escape the fact that everything inside it came from human minds. That's an ownership claim no one can relocate away from. To move beyond that default you need to organize into things like communities, lobbying groups, and/or even governments.Ownership of singular non-physical objects is a polite lie we tell ourselves because it makes us feel more secure in a universe filled with information chaos. This is a universal law of information, it is beyond the laws of men and their fickle will.Much like we build on information from our past generations, AI will build its own new information on those foundations. Ownership of singular non-physical objects is a polite lie we tell ourselves because it makes us feel more secure in a universe filled with information chaos. This is a universal law of information, it is beyond the laws of men and their fickle will.Much like we build on information from our past generations, AI will build its own new information on those foundations. Our entire civilization runs on your "polite lie" of owning non-physical things. Trillion dollar companies are built on the legal enforceability of intellectual property. You can argue that's a fiction, but it's a fiction that everything around you depends on.You can't invoke "universal laws of information" to dismiss public claims to training data while the companies training on it aggressively enforce their own IP. Calling information "entropy" doesn't make contract law disappear. You can argue that's a fiction, but it's a fiction that everything around you depends on.You can't invoke "universal laws of information" to dismiss public claims to training data while the companies training on it aggressively enforce their own IP. You can't invoke "universal laws of information" to dismiss public claims to training data while the companies training on it aggressively enforce their own IP. The same line of reasoning that purports billionaires will flee if their taxes go up.Spoiler alert: they don't.Also, data centers in space is not a serious idea. It's been beaten to death that this isn't economical. People like Musk are proposing that as a possibility for the sole reason of keeping regulation away. "Well if you regulate us we will just move into space". Spoiler alert: they don't.Also, data centers in space is not a serious idea. It's been beaten to death that this isn't economical. People like Musk are proposing that as a possibility for the sole reason of keeping regulation away. "Well if you regulate us we will just move into space". Also, data centers in space is not a serious idea. It's been beaten to death that this isn't economical. People like Musk are proposing that as a possibility for the sole reason of keeping regulation away. "Well if you regulate us we will just move into space". Every human uses that "resource" to train themselves, and now they use AI to supercharge that consumption.The companies are giving average lay people access to a personal PhD to help with whatever they are working on, for $20/mo, and those companies are committing an evil cardinal sin?I get the gatekeepers are pissed, LLMs are way cheaper than those expensive gate fees, and I cannot come up with a good faith argument about how giving the power of SOTA LLMs to anyone for $20/mo is somehow evil or bad.In an alternate universe these same models are $100k/mo with limited invite only access, occasionally the public gets a single demo prompt with a short reply, and $20/mo access is a utopian wet dream.If you want UBI, then the framing shouldn't be around "whoever had content on the internet circa 2024 is entitled to lifetime AI company payouts that effectively act as permanent unemployment checks." The companies are giving average lay people access to a personal PhD to help with whatever they are working on, for $20/mo, and those companies are committing an evil cardinal sin?I get the gatekeepers are pissed, LLMs are way cheaper than those expensive gate fees, and I cannot come up with a good faith argument about how giving the power of SOTA LLMs to anyone for $20/mo is somehow evil or bad.In an alternate universe these same models are $100k/mo with limited invite only access, occasionally the public gets a single demo prompt with a short reply, and $20/mo access is a utopian wet dream.If you want UBI, then the framing shouldn't be around "whoever had content on the internet circa 2024 is entitled to lifetime AI company payouts that effectively act as permanent unemployment checks." I get the gatekeepers are pissed, LLMs are way cheaper than those expensive gate fees, and I cannot come up with a good faith argument about how giving the power of SOTA LLMs to anyone for $20/mo is somehow evil or bad.In an alternate universe these same models are $100k/mo with limited invite only access, occasionally the public gets a single demo prompt with a short reply, and $20/mo access is a utopian wet dream.If you want UBI, then the framing shouldn't be around "whoever had content on the internet circa 2024 is entitled to lifetime AI company payouts that effectively act as permanent unemployment checks." In an alternate universe these same models are $100k/mo with limited invite only access, occasionally the public gets a single demo prompt with a short reply, and $20/mo access is a utopian wet dream.If you want UBI, then the framing shouldn't be around "whoever had content on the internet circa 2024 is entitled to lifetime AI company payouts that effectively act as permanent unemployment checks." If you want UBI, then the framing shouldn't be around "whoever had content on the internet circa 2024 is entitled to lifetime AI company payouts that effectively act as permanent unemployment checks." Sick of how SV/VC absolutely ruin words for their own monetary benefit.How about you put up it up to a national vote and see what democracy gets you? I highly suspect that vast majorities of the electorate would want to nationalize this tech to benefit everyone rather than benefiting the few.Democracy means there is a politics of rejection, rejection is normal in functioning democracies; what isn't normal are small handfuls of people capturing all collective human intelligence then claiming only they are allowed to benefit from it. I highly suspect that vast majorities of the electorate would want to nationalize this tech to benefit everyone rather than benefiting the few.Democracy means there is a politics of rejection, rejection is normal in functioning democracies; what isn't normal are small handfuls of people capturing all collective human intelligence then claiming only they are allowed to benefit from it. Democracy means there is a politics of rejection, rejection is normal in functioning democracies; what isn't normal are small handfuls of people capturing all collective human intelligence then claiming only they are allowed to benefit from it. Us the population have already lost a war we had no idea we were fighting to an enemy that plays a far longer game than most of us. I suppose the root of the word is from democracy, everyone gets a vote/equal rights, but the meaning doesn't really have anything to do with politics or government...So to reframe my argument for clarity;I have a hard time coming up with an honest critique of why giving everyone incredibly cheap access (often free!) So to reframe my argument for clarity;I have a hard time coming up with an honest critique of why giving everyone incredibly cheap access (often free!) I have a hard time coming up with an honest critique of why giving everyone incredibly cheap access (often free!) I'm having a hard time understanding why you think it's okay for SV to steal from humanity then profit off of our knowledge? I don't accept it at all, the vast majority of Americans don't accept it.This is just neoliberalism with flame decals.These things are CLEARLY NOT POPULAR, why do you think all the LLM companies are trying to force these tools through corporate mandates that have been falling? Why do you think LLM companies are chasing after lucrative corporate welfare in the form of government contracts lasting from years to decades?For a technology that sure billed as useful sure is struggling hard to find paying customers.Why do you think people are protesting data center buildouts? Why do you think the vast majority of Americans hate big tech and SV? Look at who the most hated people are in America, it's nearly all of big tech leadership.Get out of your bubble.I have never seen a product that has to have a company mandate to use it or lose your job. Usually products that are useful and productive don't need a company mandate for adoption. This is just neoliberalism with flame decals.These things are CLEARLY NOT POPULAR, why do you think all the LLM companies are trying to force these tools through corporate mandates that have been falling? Why do you think LLM companies are chasing after lucrative corporate welfare in the form of government contracts lasting from years to decades?For a technology that sure billed as useful sure is struggling hard to find paying customers.Why do you think people are protesting data center buildouts? Why do you think the vast majority of Americans hate big tech and SV? Look at who the most hated people are in America, it's nearly all of big tech leadership.Get out of your bubble.I have never seen a product that has to have a company mandate to use it or lose your job. Usually products that are useful and productive don't need a company mandate for adoption. These things are CLEARLY NOT POPULAR, why do you think all the LLM companies are trying to force these tools through corporate mandates that have been falling? Why do you think LLM companies are chasing after lucrative corporate welfare in the form of government contracts lasting from years to decades?For a technology that sure billed as useful sure is struggling hard to find paying customers.Why do you think people are protesting data center buildouts? Why do you think the vast majority of Americans hate big tech and SV? Look at who the most hated people are in America, it's nearly all of big tech leadership.Get out of your bubble.I have never seen a product that has to have a company mandate to use it or lose your job. Usually products that are useful and productive don't need a company mandate for adoption. For a technology that sure billed as useful sure is struggling hard to find paying customers.Why do you think people are protesting data center buildouts? Why do you think the vast majority of Americans hate big tech and SV? Look at who the most hated people are in America, it's nearly all of big tech leadership.Get out of your bubble.I have never seen a product that has to have a company mandate to use it or lose your job. Usually products that are useful and productive don't need a company mandate for adoption. Why do you think people are protesting data center buildouts? Why do you think the vast majority of Americans hate big tech and SV? Look at who the most hated people are in America, it's nearly all of big tech leadership.Get out of your bubble.I have never seen a product that has to have a company mandate to use it or lose your job. Usually products that are useful and productive don't need a company mandate for adoption. Get out of your bubble.I have never seen a product that has to have a company mandate to use it or lose your job. Usually products that are useful and productive don't need a company mandate for adoption. Usually products that are useful and productive don't need a company mandate for adoption. Ironically if you actually read that study, the "MIT report: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing", they found that almost everyone was using AI tools they paid for.>While official enterprise initiatives remain stuck on the wrong side of the GenAI Divide, employees are already crossing it through personal AI tools. This "shadow AI" often delivers better ROI than formal initiatives and reveals what actually works for bridging the divide. Behind the disappointing enterprise deployment numbers lies a surprising reality: AI is already transforming work, just not through official channels. Our research uncovered a thriving "shadow AI economy" where employees use personal ChatGPT accounts, Claude subscriptions, and other consumer tools to automate significant portions of their jobs, often without IT knowledge or approval. In many cases, shadow AI users reported using LLMs multiples times a day every day of their weekly workload through personal tools, while their companies' official AI initiatives remained stalled in pilot phase [1]If you want to avoid info bubbles, read the reports, not just headlines and comments.[1]https://mlq.ai/media/quarterly_decks/v0.1_State_of_AI_in_Bus... >While official enterprise initiatives remain stuck on the wrong side of the GenAI Divide, employees are already crossing it through personal AI tools. This "shadow AI" often delivers better ROI than formal initiatives and reveals what actually works for bridging the divide. Behind the disappointing enterprise deployment numbers lies a surprising reality: AI is already transforming work, just not through official channels. Our research uncovered a thriving "shadow AI economy" where employees use personal ChatGPT accounts, Claude subscriptions, and other consumer tools to automate significant portions of their jobs, often without IT knowledge or approval. In many cases, shadow AI users reported using LLMs multiples times a day every day of their weekly workload through personal tools, while their companies' official AI initiatives remained stalled in pilot phase [1]If you want to avoid info bubbles, read the reports, not just headlines and comments.[1]https://mlq.ai/media/quarterly_decks/v0.1_State_of_AI_in_Bus... If you want to avoid info bubbles, read the reports, not just headlines and comments.[1]https://mlq.ai/media/quarterly_decks/v0.1_State_of_AI_in_Bus... Their books that they wrote and now will never get paid for cuz the LLM ripped it? Many books you can even get free at a library.... Average people who wants to go home from work and game are fucking angry at AI for raising the ram prices.Average person who wants to own the stuff and not have things on cloud are fucking angry at AI for raising prices 5 times in such a short period of time.Have you talked to an average person and how they use AI? They use it as a glorified no-code editor and search engine.A search engine which can make some pretty wrong cases which can literally lead to near death like scenarios all while being completely trust me bro attitude.A man asked AI for health advice and it cooked every brain cell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yftBiNu0ZNUNormal people use AI to confide in it secrets, seek therapy somehow. And the same AI generates AI pyschosis.Now coming to tech industry: Tech industry is worried about that such levels of democratization just means that nobody is going to pay for them yet at the same time, we will see projects who are completely created by AI seek money. It's this weird mush where if you are a genuine guy who just loved computing, who loved tinkering, yeah we're offloading that capability to AII have seen this even more and more with as agents want to get more autonomous or we are letting them be. I don't consider myself a full fledged programmer right now and AI did supercharge me and made me have projects. Nowadays, it just feels like prompt ---> (Time) --> Output.It just feels hollow and AI companies did it by abusing the passion of these same developers and scraping stack overflow, scraping github and having all disregards for properties.People could spend years creating a book about say postgres and an AI took it, ripped it in half and then decided to use that info and not even give credits.All, at the same time that AI is being pushed down on employees. Some just don't want to have it but nope, they must. they are forced.Essentially engineering with AI feels like it becomes a marketing gimmick. Moreover, the repository added roughly 220,000 stars within 84 days of launch. In contrast, Kubernetes needed five years for similar numbers. Independent GitHub Archive pulls show several single-day jumps above 25,000 stars. Such abrupt spikes often signal scripted starring, yet no formal audit confirms abuse. Now, the norm to me feels like buy github stars and buy twitter attention or pray to be in an algorithm which you can't read but it reads every move you make, and yes this is your business strategy nowHave you looked at truly AI-first companies and what they do/like how do they generate numbers in the first place?These are two distinct points. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. Average person who wants to own the stuff and not have things on cloud are fucking angry at AI for raising prices 5 times in such a short period of time.Have you talked to an average person and how they use AI? They use it as a glorified no-code editor and search engine.A search engine which can make some pretty wrong cases which can literally lead to near death like scenarios all while being completely trust me bro attitude.A man asked AI for health advice and it cooked every brain cell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yftBiNu0ZNUNormal people use AI to confide in it secrets, seek therapy somehow. And the same AI generates AI pyschosis.Now coming to tech industry: Tech industry is worried about that such levels of democratization just means that nobody is going to pay for them yet at the same time, we will see projects who are completely created by AI seek money. It's this weird mush where if you are a genuine guy who just loved computing, who loved tinkering, yeah we're offloading that capability to AII have seen this even more and more with as agents want to get more autonomous or we are letting them be. I don't consider myself a full fledged programmer right now and AI did supercharge me and made me have projects. Nowadays, it just feels like prompt ---> (Time) --> Output.It just feels hollow and AI companies did it by abusing the passion of these same developers and scraping stack overflow, scraping github and having all disregards for properties.People could spend years creating a book about say postgres and an AI took it, ripped it in half and then decided to use that info and not even give credits.All, at the same time that AI is being pushed down on employees. Some just don't want to have it but nope, they must. they are forced.Essentially engineering with AI feels like it becomes a marketing gimmick. Moreover, the repository added roughly 220,000 stars within 84 days of launch. In contrast, Kubernetes needed five years for similar numbers. Independent GitHub Archive pulls show several single-day jumps above 25,000 stars. Such abrupt spikes often signal scripted starring, yet no formal audit confirms abuse. Now, the norm to me feels like buy github stars and buy twitter attention or pray to be in an algorithm which you can't read but it reads every move you make, and yes this is your business strategy nowHave you looked at truly AI-first companies and what they do/like how do they generate numbers in the first place?These are two distinct points. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. Have you talked to an average person and how they use AI? They use it as a glorified no-code editor and search engine.A search engine which can make some pretty wrong cases which can literally lead to near death like scenarios all while being completely trust me bro attitude.A man asked AI for health advice and it cooked every brain cell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yftBiNu0ZNUNormal people use AI to confide in it secrets, seek therapy somehow. And the same AI generates AI pyschosis.Now coming to tech industry: Tech industry is worried about that such levels of democratization just means that nobody is going to pay for them yet at the same time, we will see projects who are completely created by AI seek money. It's this weird mush where if you are a genuine guy who just loved computing, who loved tinkering, yeah we're offloading that capability to AII have seen this even more and more with as agents want to get more autonomous or we are letting them be. I don't consider myself a full fledged programmer right now and AI did supercharge me and made me have projects. Nowadays, it just feels like prompt ---> (Time) --> Output.It just feels hollow and AI companies did it by abusing the passion of these same developers and scraping stack overflow, scraping github and having all disregards for properties.People could spend years creating a book about say postgres and an AI took it, ripped it in half and then decided to use that info and not even give credits.All, at the same time that AI is being pushed down on employees. Some just don't want to have it but nope, they must. they are forced.Essentially engineering with AI feels like it becomes a marketing gimmick. Moreover, the repository added roughly 220,000 stars within 84 days of launch. In contrast, Kubernetes needed five years for similar numbers. Independent GitHub Archive pulls show several single-day jumps above 25,000 stars. Such abrupt spikes often signal scripted starring, yet no formal audit confirms abuse. Now, the norm to me feels like buy github stars and buy twitter attention or pray to be in an algorithm which you can't read but it reads every move you make, and yes this is your business strategy nowHave you looked at truly AI-first companies and what they do/like how do they generate numbers in the first place?These are two distinct points. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. A search engine which can make some pretty wrong cases which can literally lead to near death like scenarios all while being completely trust me bro attitude.A man asked AI for health advice and it cooked every brain cell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yftBiNu0ZNUNormal people use AI to confide in it secrets, seek therapy somehow. And the same AI generates AI pyschosis.Now coming to tech industry: Tech industry is worried about that such levels of democratization just means that nobody is going to pay for them yet at the same time, we will see projects who are completely created by AI seek money. It's this weird mush where if you are a genuine guy who just loved computing, who loved tinkering, yeah we're offloading that capability to AII have seen this even more and more with as agents want to get more autonomous or we are letting them be. I don't consider myself a full fledged programmer right now and AI did supercharge me and made me have projects. Nowadays, it just feels like prompt ---> (Time) --> Output.It just feels hollow and AI companies did it by abusing the passion of these same developers and scraping stack overflow, scraping github and having all disregards for properties.People could spend years creating a book about say postgres and an AI took it, ripped it in half and then decided to use that info and not even give credits.All, at the same time that AI is being pushed down on employees. Some just don't want to have it but nope, they must. they are forced.Essentially engineering with AI feels like it becomes a marketing gimmick. Moreover, the repository added roughly 220,000 stars within 84 days of launch. In contrast, Kubernetes needed five years for similar numbers. Independent GitHub Archive pulls show several single-day jumps above 25,000 stars. Such abrupt spikes often signal scripted starring, yet no formal audit confirms abuse. Now, the norm to me feels like buy github stars and buy twitter attention or pray to be in an algorithm which you can't read but it reads every move you make, and yes this is your business strategy nowHave you looked at truly AI-first companies and what they do/like how do they generate numbers in the first place?These are two distinct points. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. A man asked AI for health advice and it cooked every brain cell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yftBiNu0ZNUNormal people use AI to confide in it secrets, seek therapy somehow. And the same AI generates AI pyschosis.Now coming to tech industry: Tech industry is worried about that such levels of democratization just means that nobody is going to pay for them yet at the same time, we will see projects who are completely created by AI seek money. It's this weird mush where if you are a genuine guy who just loved computing, who loved tinkering, yeah we're offloading that capability to AII have seen this even more and more with as agents want to get more autonomous or we are letting them be. I don't consider myself a full fledged programmer right now and AI did supercharge me and made me have projects. Nowadays, it just feels like prompt ---> (Time) --> Output.It just feels hollow and AI companies did it by abusing the passion of these same developers and scraping stack overflow, scraping github and having all disregards for properties.People could spend years creating a book about say postgres and an AI took it, ripped it in half and then decided to use that info and not even give credits.All, at the same time that AI is being pushed down on employees. Some just don't want to have it but nope, they must. they are forced.Essentially engineering with AI feels like it becomes a marketing gimmick. Moreover, the repository added roughly 220,000 stars within 84 days of launch. In contrast, Kubernetes needed five years for similar numbers. Independent GitHub Archive pulls show several single-day jumps above 25,000 stars. Such abrupt spikes often signal scripted starring, yet no formal audit confirms abuse. Now, the norm to me feels like buy github stars and buy twitter attention or pray to be in an algorithm which you can't read but it reads every move you make, and yes this is your business strategy nowHave you looked at truly AI-first companies and what they do/like how do they generate numbers in the first place?These are two distinct points. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. Normal people use AI to confide in it secrets, seek therapy somehow. And the same AI generates AI pyschosis.Now coming to tech industry: Tech industry is worried about that such levels of democratization just means that nobody is going to pay for them yet at the same time, we will see projects who are completely created by AI seek money. It's this weird mush where if you are a genuine guy who just loved computing, who loved tinkering, yeah we're offloading that capability to AII have seen this even more and more with as agents want to get more autonomous or we are letting them be. I don't consider myself a full fledged programmer right now and AI did supercharge me and made me have projects. Nowadays, it just feels like prompt ---> (Time) --> Output.It just feels hollow and AI companies did it by abusing the passion of these same developers and scraping stack overflow, scraping github and having all disregards for properties.People could spend years creating a book about say postgres and an AI took it, ripped it in half and then decided to use that info and not even give credits.All, at the same time that AI is being pushed down on employees. Some just don't want to have it but nope, they must. they are forced.Essentially engineering with AI feels like it becomes a marketing gimmick. Moreover, the repository added roughly 220,000 stars within 84 days of launch. In contrast, Kubernetes needed five years for similar numbers. Independent GitHub Archive pulls show several single-day jumps above 25,000 stars. Such abrupt spikes often signal scripted starring, yet no formal audit confirms abuse. Now, the norm to me feels like buy github stars and buy twitter attention or pray to be in an algorithm which you can't read but it reads every move you make, and yes this is your business strategy nowHave you looked at truly AI-first companies and what they do/like how do they generate numbers in the first place?These are two distinct points. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. Now coming to tech industry: Tech industry is worried about that such levels of democratization just means that nobody is going to pay for them yet at the same time, we will see projects who are completely created by AI seek money. It's this weird mush where if you are a genuine guy who just loved computing, who loved tinkering, yeah we're offloading that capability to AII have seen this even more and more with as agents want to get more autonomous or we are letting them be. I don't consider myself a full fledged programmer right now and AI did supercharge me and made me have projects. Nowadays, it just feels like prompt ---> (Time) --> Output.It just feels hollow and AI companies did it by abusing the passion of these same developers and scraping stack overflow, scraping github and having all disregards for properties.People could spend years creating a book about say postgres and an AI took it, ripped it in half and then decided to use that info and not even give credits.All, at the same time that AI is being pushed down on employees. Some just don't want to have it but nope, they must. they are forced.Essentially engineering with AI feels like it becomes a marketing gimmick. Moreover, the repository added roughly 220,000 stars within 84 days of launch. In contrast, Kubernetes needed five years for similar numbers. Independent GitHub Archive pulls show several single-day jumps above 25,000 stars. Such abrupt spikes often signal scripted starring, yet no formal audit confirms abuse. Now, the norm to me feels like buy github stars and buy twitter attention or pray to be in an algorithm which you can't read but it reads every move you make, and yes this is your business strategy nowHave you looked at truly AI-first companies and what they do/like how do they generate numbers in the first place?These are two distinct points. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. I don't consider myself a full fledged programmer right now and AI did supercharge me and made me have projects. Nowadays, it just feels like prompt ---> (Time) --> Output.It just feels hollow and AI companies did it by abusing the passion of these same developers and scraping stack overflow, scraping github and having all disregards for properties.People could spend years creating a book about say postgres and an AI took it, ripped it in half and then decided to use that info and not even give credits.All, at the same time that AI is being pushed down on employees. Some just don't want to have it but nope, they must. they are forced.Essentially engineering with AI feels like it becomes a marketing gimmick. Moreover, the repository added roughly 220,000 stars within 84 days of launch. In contrast, Kubernetes needed five years for similar numbers. Independent GitHub Archive pulls show several single-day jumps above 25,000 stars. Such abrupt spikes often signal scripted starring, yet no formal audit confirms abuse. Now, the norm to me feels like buy github stars and buy twitter attention or pray to be in an algorithm which you can't read but it reads every move you make, and yes this is your business strategy nowHave you looked at truly AI-first companies and what they do/like how do they generate numbers in the first place?These are two distinct points. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. Some just don't want to have it but nope, they must. they are forced.Essentially engineering with AI feels like it becomes a marketing gimmick. Moreover, the repository added roughly 220,000 stars within 84 days of launch. In contrast, Kubernetes needed five years for similar numbers. Independent GitHub Archive pulls show several single-day jumps above 25,000 stars. Such abrupt spikes often signal scripted starring, yet no formal audit confirms abuse. Now, the norm to me feels like buy github stars and buy twitter attention or pray to be in an algorithm which you can't read but it reads every move you make, and yes this is your business strategy nowHave you looked at truly AI-first companies and what they do/like how do they generate numbers in the first place?These are two distinct points. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. People could spend years creating a book about say postgres and an AI took it, ripped it in half and then decided to use that info and not even give credits.All, at the same time that AI is being pushed down on employees. Some just don't want to have it but nope, they must. they are forced.Essentially engineering with AI feels like it becomes a marketing gimmick. Moreover, the repository added roughly 220,000 stars within 84 days of launch. In contrast, Kubernetes needed five years for similar numbers. Independent GitHub Archive pulls show several single-day jumps above 25,000 stars. Such abrupt spikes often signal scripted starring, yet no formal audit confirms abuse. Now, the norm to me feels like buy github stars and buy twitter attention or pray to be in an algorithm which you can't read but it reads every move you make, and yes this is your business strategy nowHave you looked at truly AI-first companies and what they do/like how do they generate numbers in the first place?These are two distinct points. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. All, at the same time that AI is being pushed down on employees. Some just don't want to have it but nope, they must. they are forced.Essentially engineering with AI feels like it becomes a marketing gimmick. Moreover, the repository added roughly 220,000 stars within 84 days of launch. In contrast, Kubernetes needed five years for similar numbers. Independent GitHub Archive pulls show several single-day jumps above 25,000 stars. Such abrupt spikes often signal scripted starring, yet no formal audit confirms abuse. Now, the norm to me feels like buy github stars and buy twitter attention or pray to be in an algorithm which you can't read but it reads every move you make, and yes this is your business strategy nowHave you looked at truly AI-first companies and what they do/like how do they generate numbers in the first place?These are two distinct points. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. Essentially engineering with AI feels like it becomes a marketing gimmick. Moreover, the repository added roughly 220,000 stars within 84 days of launch. In contrast, Kubernetes needed five years for similar numbers. Independent GitHub Archive pulls show several single-day jumps above 25,000 stars. Such abrupt spikes often signal scripted starring, yet no formal audit confirms abuse. Now, the norm to me feels like buy github stars and buy twitter attention or pray to be in an algorithm which you can't read but it reads every move you make, and yes this is your business strategy nowHave you looked at truly AI-first companies and what they do/like how do they generate numbers in the first place?These are two distinct points. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. Turns out that nowadays there are allegations being made against Openclaw> Star velocity shocked analysts. Moreover, the repository added roughly 220,000 stars within 84 days of launch. In contrast, Kubernetes needed five years for similar numbers. Independent GitHub Archive pulls show several single-day jumps above 25,000 stars. Such abrupt spikes often signal scripted starring, yet no formal audit confirms abuse. Now, the norm to me feels like buy github stars and buy twitter attention or pray to be in an algorithm which you can't read but it reads every move you make, and yes this is your business strategy nowHave you looked at truly AI-first companies and what they do/like how do they generate numbers in the first place?These are two distinct points. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. Moreover, the repository added roughly 220,000 stars within 84 days of launch. In contrast, Kubernetes needed five years for similar numbers. Independent GitHub Archive pulls show several single-day jumps above 25,000 stars. Such abrupt spikes often signal scripted starring, yet no formal audit confirms abuse. Now, the norm to me feels like buy github stars and buy twitter attention or pray to be in an algorithm which you can't read but it reads every move you make, and yes this is your business strategy nowHave you looked at truly AI-first companies and what they do/like how do they generate numbers in the first place?These are two distinct points. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. https://www.aicerts.ai/news/openclaws-github-stars-controver...The marketing industry has been very closely linked to sometimes scam prone areas and shady areas of the internet and engineering used to be clean from all of this for the most part. Now, the norm to me feels like buy github stars and buy twitter attention or pray to be in an algorithm which you can't read but it reads every move you make, and yes this is your business strategy nowHave you looked at truly AI-first companies and what they do/like how do they generate numbers in the first place?These are two distinct points. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. Now, the norm to me feels like buy github stars and buy twitter attention or pray to be in an algorithm which you can't read but it reads every move you make, and yes this is your business strategy nowHave you looked at truly AI-first companies and what they do/like how do they generate numbers in the first place?These are two distinct points. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. Have you looked at truly AI-first companies and what they do/like how do they generate numbers in the first place?These are two distinct points. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron. Consumers are paying a lot more than $20/month for this slop. I mean, raise you hand if you have never paid for AI "slop", I see maybe a hand or two in this room of tens of thousands.It's a strawman to frame it as AI labs get everything and society gets nothing. AI can be genuinely useful AND the people whose collective output made it possible can deserve a share of the wealth it generates. So your understanding of the present state is that we are living in a utopian wet dream now that we have models who can generate slop faster so much so that we have a term of it called AI slop?I or many people don't want this Utopian wet dream, so I want to know, did I or other people have say it or not?A few select people decide what's the definition of a Utopian wet dream is and they then take the collective properties of everybody else to fulfill that and even putting the employment/livelihood of those same people into risksSir, does that sound familiar?> I get the gatekeepers are pissedNo, humans are pissed, humans just like how you and your family are humans too (well I sure hope so) I or many people don't want this Utopian wet dream, so I want to know, did I or other people have say it or not?A few select people decide what's the definition of a Utopian wet dream is and they then take the collective properties of everybody else to fulfill that and even putting the employment/livelihood of those same people into risksSir, does that sound familiar?> I get the gatekeepers are pissedNo, humans are pissed, humans just like how you and your family are humans too (well I sure hope so) A few select people decide what's the definition of a Utopian wet dream is and they then take the collective properties of everybody else to fulfill that and even putting the employment/livelihood of those same people into risksSir, does that sound familiar?> I get the gatekeepers are pissedNo, humans are pissed, humans just like how you and your family are humans too (well I sure hope so) A helper tool that I can ask a question and which responds with relevant information gleaned from the vast collection of human-gathered knowledge and experience would be fantastic.What we have instead is something that often gets things mostly right, if you don't look too hard at it. What we have instead is something that often gets things mostly right, if you don't look too hard at it. The social media companies gave their services for free, and now it turns out they've committed quite a few sins. The question isn't "was something taken from you." It's "who deserves a share when collective human output generates trillions in commercial value. Nobody loses their original movie when it gets pirated either. The entire IP enforcement apparatus is built on exactly that principle.Non-rivalrous doesn't mean non-exploitable. Nobody loses their original movie when it gets pirated either. The entire IP enforcement apparatus is built on exactly that principle.Non-rivalrous doesn't mean non-exploitable. Edit: to clarify, this wouldn't be a tax. A royalty is the owner charging for access to their resource. It charges Exxon for extracting something that belongs to the people. It being a royalty and not a tax is the reason Alaska's dividend is politically untouchable while tax-funded programs get gutted every budget cycle. Norway's sovereign wealth fund is the largest on earth and their economy is doing fine.These models work.. work well... And they exist comfortably within mixed market economies.The question is whether the public gets a cut when private companies build fortunes on a collectively generated resource, or whether they don't. We already know the answer can be yes without anything breaking.Our entire white collar system might be a house of cards with AI, what I am proposing is a safe hedge against a future with potentially massive wealth inequality, and increased unemployment. But this isn't just about protection from injury... people should BENEFIT massively. These models work.. work well... And they exist comfortably within mixed market economies.The question is whether the public gets a cut when private companies build fortunes on a collectively generated resource, or whether they don't. We already know the answer can be yes without anything breaking.Our entire white collar system might be a house of cards with AI, what I am proposing is a safe hedge against a future with potentially massive wealth inequality, and increased unemployment. But this isn't just about protection from injury... people should BENEFIT massively. The question is whether the public gets a cut when private companies build fortunes on a collectively generated resource, or whether they don't. We already know the answer can be yes without anything breaking.Our entire white collar system might be a house of cards with AI, what I am proposing is a safe hedge against a future with potentially massive wealth inequality, and increased unemployment. But this isn't just about protection from injury... people should BENEFIT massively. But this isn't just about protection from injury... people should BENEFIT massively. not sure if that would work in this case since all these companies scraped (publicly) available data? So with the right resources anyone could redo it? because no one believes there are legal consequences if they don'tand there are a lot of ways to doge it even if there where a reliable government in placelike especially if they do what they have been doing recently (run their own generator, build their own power planes) a lot of this cost is implicit and as such very dogeable. and there are a lot of ways to doge it even if there where a reliable government in placelike especially if they do what they have been doing recently (run their own generator, build their own power planes) a lot of this cost is implicit and as such very dogeable. like especially if they do what they have been doing recently (run their own generator, build their own power planes) a lot of this cost is implicit and as such very dogeable. Blinded by greed, I have never done it before, but I have seen the light, the bright future that we are all building toward.From this day forth, I shall be righteous.In your name, all good things come.Hallelujah. From this day forth, I shall be righteous.In your name, all good things come.Hallelujah. You basically have a lot of people that will vote a lot of people into office to take down all AI progress inside the United States if they don't fix their problems.It'll be cool to shit on big tech as a politician. It'll be cool to shit on big tech as a politician. My local gravel and concrete plants run their "big stuff" off generators because the cost of the utility drop for their amperage doesn't make sense. My energy bill is going to reflect god knows how many hundreds of billable hours it takes for these hired lawyers and engineers to prove to the system that they're not gonna fuck over any endangered frogs by widening the cut to meet some industry standard that changed over the past N year and dumping culverts and fill in some places where streams criss cross it.Literally nobody involved cares. The city engineer grills them about petty bullshit because it's literally his job. We're all doing this because some slimy politicians wanted to pander to some shortsighted big picture ignoring environmentalists 50yr ago and beurocacy has perpetuated and grown itself since. I'm an abutter for a utility project and I've gone to the meetings for and it's an absolute massive boondoggle. My energy bill is going to reflect god knows how many hundreds of billable hours it takes for these hired lawyers and engineers to prove to the system that they're not gonna fuck over any endangered frogs by widening the cut to meet some industry standard that changed over the past N year and dumping culverts and fill in some places where streams criss cross it.Literally nobody involved cares. The city engineer grills them about petty bullshit because it's literally his job. We're all doing this because some slimy politicians wanted to pander to some shortsighted big picture ignoring environmentalists 50yr ago and beurocacy has perpetuated and grown itself since. The city engineer grills them about petty bullshit because it's literally his job. We're all doing this because some slimy politicians wanted to pander to some shortsighted big picture ignoring environmentalists 50yr ago and beurocacy has perpetuated and grown itself since. I would go so far as to say that (state and local implementation of requirements within) the clean water act is a non-negligible contributor to the decline of manufacturing and agriculture in the northeast and upper midwest.We basically took "thou shalt not dump for that is bad for our surface and ground water" and over 50yr turned it into a blank check for all manner of leeches to make a buck and all manner of NIMBYs to make things unnecessarily expensive.Petty 1.5-acre "I want my lightly forested former field to be a field again" and "business is going great I want my gavel parking lot paved" being stalled by five figure costs and even with those costs incurred it doesn't guarantee compliance. And the big industrial offenders still get to do what they want, not as bad as before of course, but still bad. Some Megacorp's runoff might turn the fish neon green or their 1k unit condo development might turn the river brown with silt but of course they'll be right there with their lawyers and experts who'll tell you why it's fine even when it's not to anyone with a brain and two eyeballs. (I assume this frequent fact pattern what you refer to by "living in the stink")I think it ought to be revamped at the state and local level into something that's substantially more "results based" rather than the proactive red tape "make the bureaucrats feel like their ass is covered if someone ever complains about what they approved" based system we have now. (And just to be clear for any readers who aren't familiar, the clean water act basically doesn't do much to affect the average person or business at a federal level. We basically took "thou shalt not dump for that is bad for our surface and ground water" and over 50yr turned it into a blank check for all manner of leeches to make a buck and all manner of NIMBYs to make things unnecessarily expensive.Petty 1.5-acre "I want my lightly forested former field to be a field again" and "business is going great I want my gavel parking lot paved" being stalled by five figure costs and even with those costs incurred it doesn't guarantee compliance. And the big industrial offenders still get to do what they want, not as bad as before of course, but still bad. Some Megacorp's runoff might turn the fish neon green or their 1k unit condo development might turn the river brown with silt but of course they'll be right there with their lawyers and experts who'll tell you why it's fine even when it's not to anyone with a brain and two eyeballs. (I assume this frequent fact pattern what you refer to by "living in the stink")I think it ought to be revamped at the state and local level into something that's substantially more "results based" rather than the proactive red tape "make the bureaucrats feel like their ass is covered if someone ever complains about what they approved" based system we have now. (And just to be clear for any readers who aren't familiar, the clean water act basically doesn't do much to affect the average person or business at a federal level. Petty 1.5-acre "I want my lightly forested former field to be a field again" and "business is going great I want my gavel parking lot paved" being stalled by five figure costs and even with those costs incurred it doesn't guarantee compliance. And the big industrial offenders still get to do what they want, not as bad as before of course, but still bad. Some Megacorp's runoff might turn the fish neon green or their 1k unit condo development might turn the river brown with silt but of course they'll be right there with their lawyers and experts who'll tell you why it's fine even when it's not to anyone with a brain and two eyeballs. (I assume this frequent fact pattern what you refer to by "living in the stink")I think it ought to be revamped at the state and local level into something that's substantially more "results based" rather than the proactive red tape "make the bureaucrats feel like their ass is covered if someone ever complains about what they approved" based system we have now. (And just to be clear for any readers who aren't familiar, the clean water act basically doesn't do much to affect the average person or business at a federal level. I think it ought to be revamped at the state and local level into something that's substantially more "results based" rather than the proactive red tape "make the bureaucrats feel like their ass is covered if someone ever complains about what they approved" based system we have now. (And just to be clear for any readers who aren't familiar, the clean water act basically doesn't do much to affect the average person or business at a federal level. (And just to be clear for any readers who aren't familiar, the clean water act basically doesn't do much to affect the average person or business at a federal level. a lot of people in the public sector aren't willing to step out of line for "frogs" even when they should or want to. So you get some guy approving some megacorps project because "well it says here that they've tested the stuff and the liquid mercury is below the Also BigTech is not going to build the power generation plants, it must be built by existing processes to minimize impact on pricingThe issue with this requirement is that it's not a capital problem. Big tech would be happy to pay someone to build more power generation and just take a power feed, even if it costs marginally more.What they cannot do is wait 12 years for what they could get done in 2. And I do not blame them at all for this at all - building anything in the US is basically impossible these days due to the NIMBY and general culture of not getting things done. It's a case of the power literally not being there and the utilities being utterly incompetent at building anything in any reasonable timeframe. > Also BigTech is not going to build the power generation plants, it must be built by existing processes to minimize impact on pricingThe issue with this requirement is that it's not a capital problem. Big tech would be happy to pay someone to build more power generation and just take a power feed, even if it costs marginally more.What they cannot do is wait 12 years for what they could get done in 2. And I do not blame them at all for this at all - building anything in the US is basically impossible these days due to the NIMBY and general culture of not getting things done. It's a case of the power literally not being there and the utilities being utterly incompetent at building anything in any reasonable timeframe. The issue with this requirement is that it's not a capital problem. Big tech would be happy to pay someone to build more power generation and just take a power feed, even if it costs marginally more.What they cannot do is wait 12 years for what they could get done in 2. And I do not blame them at all for this at all - building anything in the US is basically impossible these days due to the NIMBY and general culture of not getting things done. It's a case of the power literally not being there and the utilities being utterly incompetent at building anything in any reasonable timeframe. And I do not blame them at all for this at all - building anything in the US is basically impossible these days due to the NIMBY and general culture of not getting things done. It's a case of the power literally not being there and the utilities being utterly incompetent at building anything in any reasonable timeframe. It's a case of the power literally not being there and the utilities being utterly incompetent at building anything in any reasonable timeframe. The threat is: This "datacenter power" disincentives buildout of "free" powerplants (by eating up significant demand at very low margins thanks to basically vertical integration); this slows down buildout of "normal" infrastructure (possibly both grid connectivity and power), and the electrical energy market becomes worse for consumers than it is now.I personally think all of this is very speculative for now, but allowing industry to rely on the grid (which they still would!) I personally think all of this is very speculative for now, but allowing industry to rely on the grid (which they still would!) Interconnection expenses.Same issues as with mining and large industrial clients generally. Same issues as with mining and large industrial clients generally. In short, I'm very much in favor of building the right solution to a problem.I am unsure what cognitively triggered an unhealthy response of "this is NIMBYism!" and would welcome a follow up comment to understand your train of thought. I am unsure what cognitively triggered an unhealthy response of "this is NIMBYism!" and would welcome a follow up comment to understand your train of thought. Building pipelines is a long and arduous process and one that will not be done in time to reasonably accommodate the increase in natural gas demand presented by these data centers. Increasing natural gas generation is of course disastrous policy with a major death toll from the climate disaster, there needs to be a rampdown of fossils use and production. gas turbines non stop isn't without filters etc. isn't just bad for the climate, it's a air pollution which can directly affect anyone in it's path with not only increased chances for lounge cancer but also much more short term effects like asthma, and increased chances of asthma attacks ending deadly. Especially if the weather prevents easy dispersion (like it tends to do in winter). It's not that long ago (<80y) that the west had acid rains, and deadly smog accidents exactly from this kind of negligent shit. And if we look at Asia this is sometimes still a topic today (but has gotten much better compared to just ~20 years ago). gas turbines non stop isn't without filters etc. isn't just bad for the climate, it's a air pollution which can directly affect anyone in it's path with not only increased chances for lounge cancer but also much more short term effects like asthma, and increased chances of asthma attacks ending deadly. Especially if the weather prevents easy dispersion (like it tends to do in winter). It's not that long ago (<80y) that the west had acid rains, and deadly smog accidents exactly from this kind of negligent shit. And if we look at Asia this is sometimes still a topic today (but has gotten much better compared to just ~20 years ago). gas turbines non stop isn't without filters etc. isn't just bad for the climate, it's a air pollution which can directly affect anyone in it's path with not only increased chances for lounge cancer but also much more short term effects like asthma, and increased chances of asthma attacks ending deadly. Especially if the weather prevents easy dispersion (like it tends to do in winter). It's not that long ago (<80y) that the west had acid rains, and deadly smog accidents exactly from this kind of negligent shit. And if we look at Asia this is sometimes still a topic today (but has gotten much better compared to just ~20 years ago). No MBA pencil pusher wants to run an inefficient local turbine. It's just that the timeline and upper cost bound of doing that is less crap than having a "real utility" build more power at "real utility scale" and run you a wire because the latter is subject to all manner of delay and cost overrun.And there's no inherent physical or economic reason for it to be that way. For an industry that might boom and bust in 2, 5, 10yr dumping a fuel guzzling turbine in your parking lot at 5x the cost per watt starts to look pretty good. And there's no inherent physical or economic reason for it to be that way. For an industry that might boom and bust in 2, 5, 10yr dumping a fuel guzzling turbine in your parking lot at 5x the cost per watt starts to look pretty good. For an industry that might boom and bust in 2, 5, 10yr dumping a fuel guzzling turbine in your parking lot at 5x the cost per watt starts to look pretty good. Of course this will all change, but I doubt we will see tech companies opening power plants anytime soon with their associated balance sheet dragging 1% return on equity. trees aren't just carbon, they are bio mass/nutritionand if you constantly remove bio mass you sooner or later run into issues(Which we already do in some places, e.g. when over using fields (see US dust storms), or with some managed Forrest getting increasingly more unstable not just because of warmed climate but also because of removing dead treas leading to an interruption of the natural nutrient recycling (and insect habitats) leading to Nutrition deficiency in the long run. )but we do have working carbon removal technologies, they are just not cheaphence why you want companies to pay for them, it gives them a huge reason to reduce emissions instead and if you constantly remove bio mass you sooner or later run into issues(Which we already do in some places, e.g. when over using fields (see US dust storms), or with some managed Forrest getting increasingly more unstable not just because of warmed climate but also because of removing dead treas leading to an interruption of the natural nutrient recycling (and insect habitats) leading to Nutrition deficiency in the long run. )but we do have working carbon removal technologies, they are just not cheaphence why you want companies to pay for them, it gives them a huge reason to reduce emissions instead (Which we already do in some places, e.g. when over using fields (see US dust storms), or with some managed Forrest getting increasingly more unstable not just because of warmed climate but also because of removing dead treas leading to an interruption of the natural nutrient recycling (and insect habitats) leading to Nutrition deficiency in the long run. )but we do have working carbon removal technologies, they are just not cheaphence why you want companies to pay for them, it gives them a huge reason to reduce emissions instead but we do have working carbon removal technologies, they are just not cheaphence why you want companies to pay for them, it gives them a huge reason to reduce emissions instead We produce about 2 gigatons of lumber per year, which is again about half carbon, all absorbed from the atmosphere.Unfortunately, we produce like 40 gigatons of CO2 per year. So we would have to scale lumber work dramatically. It's also not a clean industry itself, reliant on heavy machinery running on gasoline or diesel, and turning that wood into charcoal would require massive refineries.IMO more effective bets are figuring out how to artificially induce massive blooms of algae and plankton in parts of the ocean to essentially recreate the conditions that lead to the hydrocarbon deposits in the first place. There's some work on this right now, but like any massive engineering and ecological tampering, there will be tradeoffs and downsides. So we would have to scale lumber work dramatically. It's also not a clean industry itself, reliant on heavy machinery running on gasoline or diesel, and turning that wood into charcoal would require massive refineries.IMO more effective bets are figuring out how to artificially induce massive blooms of algae and plankton in parts of the ocean to essentially recreate the conditions that lead to the hydrocarbon deposits in the first place. There's some work on this right now, but like any massive engineering and ecological tampering, there will be tradeoffs and downsides. There's some work on this right now, but like any massive engineering and ecological tampering, there will be tradeoffs and downsides. completely ignoring all existing technologies related to that topic to spout obvious nonsense about "cutting down trees and burying them" (which would bind active bio mass which isn't a grate idea, also that won't produce oil anyway not that this is relevant for the discussion)various ways to reduce the carbon in the air do exist (and without trees)and the carbon can be both recycled for other usage and literally placed in the earth, tooit is not rally a solution for climate change as it's very expensive to do. But this also makes it a good idea to "make companies pay for it" (at least if their carbon-equivalent output goes above a certain threshold). Because if they have the choice between very expensive carbon removal or reducing carbon output for a much cheaper price they will do the later; But in emergency/outlier situations they still can do the former, just at a very high price. But this also makes it a good idea to "make companies pay for it" (at least if their carbon-equivalent output goes above a certain threshold). Because if they have the choice between very expensive carbon removal or reducing carbon output for a much cheaper price they will do the later; But in emergency/outlier situations they still can do the former, just at a very high price. and the carbon can be both recycled for other usage and literally placed in the earth, tooit is not rally a solution for climate change as it's very expensive to do. But this also makes it a good idea to "make companies pay for it" (at least if their carbon-equivalent output goes above a certain threshold). Because if they have the choice between very expensive carbon removal or reducing carbon output for a much cheaper price they will do the later; But in emergency/outlier situations they still can do the former, just at a very high price. But this also makes it a good idea to "make companies pay for it" (at least if their carbon-equivalent output goes above a certain threshold). Because if they have the choice between very expensive carbon removal or reducing carbon output for a much cheaper price they will do the later; But in emergency/outlier situations they still can do the former, just at a very high price. Theoretically you could harness some of those volatiles for some energy production, but at the very least use those volatiles to heat the wood and make it charcoal for basically free. It is also a ~50 year investment.This makes it not very attractive for companies and is why most nuclear power is state sub-ventioned.Theoretically the US had something similar to a state bank to help companies to finance exactly such projects, but Trump/DOGE defounded it for publicity reasons which makes it even less likely for private nuclear power plants.Many "we will use nuclear power" statements do rely on mini reactors. But AFIK pretty much all mini reactor projects have ended in dead ends so far. With promised at best working out on paper (and quite often not even there).So my guess is: They will claim they want to use Nuclear and might even intend to do so. There probably will be some single public co-investment into a nuclear power plant which "happens" to also be government sponsored to keep up the pretense. This makes it not very attractive for companies and is why most nuclear power is state sub-ventioned.Theoretically the US had something similar to a state bank to help companies to finance exactly such projects, but Trump/DOGE defounded it for publicity reasons which makes it even less likely for private nuclear power plants.Many "we will use nuclear power" statements do rely on mini reactors. But AFIK pretty much all mini reactor projects have ended in dead ends so far. With promised at best working out on paper (and quite often not even there).So my guess is: They will claim they want to use Nuclear and might even intend to do so. There probably will be some single public co-investment into a nuclear power plant which "happens" to also be government sponsored to keep up the pretense. Theoretically the US had something similar to a state bank to help companies to finance exactly such projects, but Trump/DOGE defounded it for publicity reasons which makes it even less likely for private nuclear power plants.Many "we will use nuclear power" statements do rely on mini reactors. But AFIK pretty much all mini reactor projects have ended in dead ends so far. With promised at best working out on paper (and quite often not even there).So my guess is: They will claim they want to use Nuclear and might even intend to do so. There probably will be some single public co-investment into a nuclear power plant which "happens" to also be government sponsored to keep up the pretense. Many "we will use nuclear power" statements do rely on mini reactors. But AFIK pretty much all mini reactor projects have ended in dead ends so far. With promised at best working out on paper (and quite often not even there).So my guess is: They will claim they want to use Nuclear and might even intend to do so. There probably will be some single public co-investment into a nuclear power plant which "happens" to also be government sponsored to keep up the pretense. There probably will be some single public co-investment into a nuclear power plant which "happens" to also be government sponsored to keep up the pretense. Almost everything in tech has been subsidized in one way or another via tax avoidance schemes or outright lobbying and manipulation of the market.Why would this be any different? One could say "use renewables", but even that has externalities: that means an increase in demand for solar panels, or wind turbines, or the labour to maintain them, which again leads to an increase in prices. I'm sure we'll be hearing all about how much this benefits households in the coming months and years. Fast forward to 2026, and the data suggests it's been more of a "Wealth Preservation Society" than a massive wealth redistribution event.This will be just as trustworthy. Soon I'll get a used EV and cover the garage in panels too so I don't have to care about wars causing surges in gas prices either. It wouldn't be much work to allow those to feed power back into the grid in extraordinary circumstances - They generally use local contractors to build them for practicality purposes anyway.This is just some fancy PR and nothing else. This is just some fancy PR and nothing else. That's why he wants to go into space (10x solar potential because you don't have a day/night cycle, no clouds, no dust/rain, no temperature loss, no orientation issues, and no atmosphere reducing solar).To me it seems ridiculous, for one because sending 150kg to space costs about $500k, and this is about the weight of a solar installation that costs $800 to install and generates about $1000 worth of electricity across 20 years at utility wholesale prices.But suppose it was cheaper and viable, and earth-electricity was indeed capped, you could argue (if you believe the hype) that developing AI is an existential arms-race objective for US/China.But from what I've understood that's just not the case at all. Something like 170+ coal plants are scheduled to be decommissioned, and the average coal and gas plant runs at 40-50% of capacity, because wind/solar is eating their lunch (cheaper marginal $ per kWh). i.e. there is so little demand that these plants keep using less capacity and shutting down superfluous plants.You'd think if experts believed electricity was going to be a bottleneck, that venture capital / AI companies, or even traditional capital, would be buying up plants or signing guaranteed-usage contracts. But it doesn't seem to be the case. To me it seems ridiculous, for one because sending 150kg to space costs about $500k, and this is about the weight of a solar installation that costs $800 to install and generates about $1000 worth of electricity across 20 years at utility wholesale prices.But suppose it was cheaper and viable, and earth-electricity was indeed capped, you could argue (if you believe the hype) that developing AI is an existential arms-race objective for US/China.But from what I've understood that's just not the case at all. Something like 170+ coal plants are scheduled to be decommissioned, and the average coal and gas plant runs at 40-50% of capacity, because wind/solar is eating their lunch (cheaper marginal $ per kWh). i.e. there is so little demand that these plants keep using less capacity and shutting down superfluous plants.You'd think if experts believed electricity was going to be a bottleneck, that venture capital / AI companies, or even traditional capital, would be buying up plants or signing guaranteed-usage contracts. But it doesn't seem to be the case. But suppose it was cheaper and viable, and earth-electricity was indeed capped, you could argue (if you believe the hype) that developing AI is an existential arms-race objective for US/China.But from what I've understood that's just not the case at all. Something like 170+ coal plants are scheduled to be decommissioned, and the average coal and gas plant runs at 40-50% of capacity, because wind/solar is eating their lunch (cheaper marginal $ per kWh). i.e. there is so little demand that these plants keep using less capacity and shutting down superfluous plants.You'd think if experts believed electricity was going to be a bottleneck, that venture capital / AI companies, or even traditional capital, would be buying up plants or signing guaranteed-usage contracts. But it doesn't seem to be the case. But from what I've understood that's just not the case at all. Something like 170+ coal plants are scheduled to be decommissioned, and the average coal and gas plant runs at 40-50% of capacity, because wind/solar is eating their lunch (cheaper marginal $ per kWh). i.e. there is so little demand that these plants keep using less capacity and shutting down superfluous plants.You'd think if experts believed electricity was going to be a bottleneck, that venture capital / AI companies, or even traditional capital, would be buying up plants or signing guaranteed-usage contracts. But it doesn't seem to be the case. You'd think if experts believed electricity was going to be a bottleneck, that venture capital / AI companies, or even traditional capital, would be buying up plants or signing guaranteed-usage contracts. But it doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, Nadella publicly stated that he has a large amount of hardware in inventory that has already been purchased but cannot be utilized due to insufficient energy. People are not voluntarily going to build things that make less profit.It is a suckers bet assuming the unscrupulous will grow a conscience. The general goal for utilities has been to pursue the next “thing” and work toward some sort of regulation to lock in demand, which can be used as a lever to seek price increases and consolidate.If there's margin to be had, the utilities will find a way, and prices will go up either way. That will never happen, but would prevent we the people from bearing these costs directly. I can see how big tech is enthusiastic about freestyling this. So don't worry, you'll have basic ~~income~~ soylent green. They want nothing more than getting rid of that "waste", and just having their personal factories create whatever they want and their personal farms making whatever they want and we all just fucking die. They want nothing more than getting rid of that "waste", and just having their personal factories create whatever they want and their personal farms making whatever they want and we all just fucking die. Take the case of Duke Energy in North Carolina, which illegally raised rates too much. Utilities prices are supposedly regulated but utilities work around this by simply moving costs to things they can charge whatever for (eg transmission costs vs energy costs).The NC Court of Appeals ruled that Duke Energy's actions were illegal BUT there would be no refunds for customers [1], in part because lawmakers passed a law to allow them to do this retroactively [2]. Also, if Duke Energy had to repay customers they can simply raise prices to recoup those costs even though the money was improperly charged in the first place.So consumers will keep paying for the infrastructure to connect up these data centers and will keep subsidizing the ongoing energy costs. The NC Court of Appeals ruled that Duke Energy's actions were illegal BUT there would be no refunds for customers [1], in part because lawmakers passed a law to allow them to do this retroactively [2]. Also, if Duke Energy had to repay customers they can simply raise prices to recoup those costs even though the money was improperly charged in the first place.So consumers will keep paying for the infrastructure to connect up these data centers and will keep subsidizing the ongoing energy costs. So consumers will keep paying for the infrastructure to connect up these data centers and will keep subsidizing the ongoing energy costs. Saying they're going to pay for generation and transmission adds little. They'd ask the utilities to make Gigawatts of energy available over the next two decades and the utilities would say "No problem, just sign here and agree to pay for us building out the grid to support that".Then the AI companies said "No we only want to pay for energy if we actually use it, if we go bust or decide not to use the energy in a couple of years we want you to charge all the others consumers to recoup that cost".No idea if that's addressed here. I'm assuming not.It was never clear if that reflected uncertainty about future demand or of they just like shifting costs and risk onto other people whenever possible.edit: the pledge references this problem, whether it actually solves it I don't know. Then the AI companies said "No we only want to pay for energy if we actually use it, if we go bust or decide not to use the energy in a couple of years we want you to charge all the others consumers to recoup that cost".No idea if that's addressed here. I'm assuming not.It was never clear if that reflected uncertainty about future demand or of they just like shifting costs and risk onto other people whenever possible.edit: the pledge references this problem, whether it actually solves it I don't know. I'm assuming not.It was never clear if that reflected uncertainty about future demand or of they just like shifting costs and risk onto other people whenever possible.edit: the pledge references this problem, whether it actually solves it I don't know. It was never clear if that reflected uncertainty about future demand or of they just like shifting costs and risk onto other people whenever possible.edit: the pledge references this problem, whether it actually solves it I don't know. David Roberts (https://volts.wtf) has repeatedly noted that AI companies need the power, need it now, and have the capital to get it. VPPs unlock dynamic load shifting, two-way energy sharing (think of all those roof top solar panels and powerwalls), and therefore -- most importantly -- reduces peak demand on a grid which will allow greater utilitization.IIRC: our grids currently operate at 30% capacity (to accommodate rare peak demand events). Grid enhancement techs plus VPPs can boost that to 80% or higher. Reducing the urgency for building more transmission and distribution infra. (In the short term; we still need to greatly embiggen our grid(s). )It'd be kinda amazing if the urgency to build more data centers mooted the incumbent's (utilities, regulators) opposition to improving our grid(s), thereby benefiting everyone everywhere.Tangent: there's a backlog of grid enhancing technologies available, just waiting for funding and incentives to line up.Tangent: VPPs also enable new financial products, which will further accelerate electrification (of All The Things).Point #2 Solar + BatterySolar + battery is the fastest, cheapest way to get new power generation. That means solar + battery.Aside, IIRC, data centers are projected to demand just 5% our electricity supply. So society will be the net beneficiaries (on this axis).Were Big Tech to fund the generation and grid that we need, maybe society will indulge some of Big Tech's less egregious offenses. New renewable power generation is now the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. The challenge is delivering that cheap electricity to customers. VPPs unlock dynamic load shifting, two-way energy sharing (think of all those roof top solar panels and powerwalls), and therefore -- most importantly -- reduces peak demand on a grid which will allow greater utilitization.IIRC: our grids currently operate at 30% capacity (to accommodate rare peak demand events). Grid enhancement techs plus VPPs can boost that to 80% or higher. Reducing the urgency for building more transmission and distribution infra. (In the short term; we still need to greatly embiggen our grid(s). )It'd be kinda amazing if the urgency to build more data centers mooted the incumbent's (utilities, regulators) opposition to improving our grid(s), thereby benefiting everyone everywhere.Tangent: there's a backlog of grid enhancing technologies available, just waiting for funding and incentives to line up.Tangent: VPPs also enable new financial products, which will further accelerate electrification (of All The Things).Point #2 Solar + BatterySolar + battery is the fastest, cheapest way to get new power generation. That means solar + battery.Aside, IIRC, data centers are projected to demand just 5% our electricity supply. So society will be the net beneficiaries (on this axis).Were Big Tech to fund the generation and grid that we need, maybe society will indulge some of Big Tech's less egregious offenses. New renewable power generation is now the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. The challenge is delivering that cheap electricity to customers. VPPs unlock dynamic load shifting, two-way energy sharing (think of all those roof top solar panels and powerwalls), and therefore -- most importantly -- reduces peak demand on a grid which will allow greater utilitization.IIRC: our grids currently operate at 30% capacity (to accommodate rare peak demand events). Grid enhancement techs plus VPPs can boost that to 80% or higher. Reducing the urgency for building more transmission and distribution infra. (In the short term; we still need to greatly embiggen our grid(s). )It'd be kinda amazing if the urgency to build more data centers mooted the incumbent's (utilities, regulators) opposition to improving our grid(s), thereby benefiting everyone everywhere.Tangent: there's a backlog of grid enhancing technologies available, just waiting for funding and incentives to line up.Tangent: VPPs also enable new financial products, which will further accelerate electrification (of All The Things).Point #2 Solar + BatterySolar + battery is the fastest, cheapest way to get new power generation. That means solar + battery.Aside, IIRC, data centers are projected to demand just 5% our electricity supply. So society will be the net beneficiaries (on this axis).Were Big Tech to fund the generation and grid that we need, maybe society will indulge some of Big Tech's less egregious offenses. New renewable power generation is now the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. The challenge is delivering that cheap electricity to customers. IIRC: our grids currently operate at 30% capacity (to accommodate rare peak demand events). Grid enhancement techs plus VPPs can boost that to 80% or higher. Reducing the urgency for building more transmission and distribution infra. (In the short term; we still need to greatly embiggen our grid(s). )It'd be kinda amazing if the urgency to build more data centers mooted the incumbent's (utilities, regulators) opposition to improving our grid(s), thereby benefiting everyone everywhere.Tangent: there's a backlog of grid enhancing technologies available, just waiting for funding and incentives to line up.Tangent: VPPs also enable new financial products, which will further accelerate electrification (of All The Things).Point #2 Solar + BatterySolar + battery is the fastest, cheapest way to get new power generation. That means solar + battery.Aside, IIRC, data centers are projected to demand just 5% our electricity supply. So society will be the net beneficiaries (on this axis).Were Big Tech to fund the generation and grid that we need, maybe society will indulge some of Big Tech's less egregious offenses. New renewable power generation is now the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. The challenge is delivering that cheap electricity to customers. It'd be kinda amazing if the urgency to build more data centers mooted the incumbent's (utilities, regulators) opposition to improving our grid(s), thereby benefiting everyone everywhere.Tangent: there's a backlog of grid enhancing technologies available, just waiting for funding and incentives to line up.Tangent: VPPs also enable new financial products, which will further accelerate electrification (of All The Things).Point #2 Solar + BatterySolar + battery is the fastest, cheapest way to get new power generation. That means solar + battery.Aside, IIRC, data centers are projected to demand just 5% our electricity supply. So society will be the net beneficiaries (on this axis).Were Big Tech to fund the generation and grid that we need, maybe society will indulge some of Big Tech's less egregious offenses. New renewable power generation is now the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. The challenge is delivering that cheap electricity to customers. Tangent: there's a backlog of grid enhancing technologies available, just waiting for funding and incentives to line up.Tangent: VPPs also enable new financial products, which will further accelerate electrification (of All The Things).Point #2 Solar + BatterySolar + battery is the fastest, cheapest way to get new power generation. That means solar + battery.Aside, IIRC, data centers are projected to demand just 5% our electricity supply. So society will be the net beneficiaries (on this axis).Were Big Tech to fund the generation and grid that we need, maybe society will indulge some of Big Tech's less egregious offenses. New renewable power generation is now the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. The challenge is delivering that cheap electricity to customers. Tangent: VPPs also enable new financial products, which will further accelerate electrification (of All The Things).Point #2 Solar + BatterySolar + battery is the fastest, cheapest way to get new power generation. That means solar + battery.Aside, IIRC, data centers are projected to demand just 5% our electricity supply. So society will be the net beneficiaries (on this axis).Were Big Tech to fund the generation and grid that we need, maybe society will indulge some of Big Tech's less egregious offenses. New renewable power generation is now the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. The challenge is delivering that cheap electricity to customers. Point #2 Solar + BatterySolar + battery is the fastest, cheapest way to get new power generation. That means solar + battery.Aside, IIRC, data centers are projected to demand just 5% our electricity supply. So society will be the net beneficiaries (on this axis).Were Big Tech to fund the generation and grid that we need, maybe society will indulge some of Big Tech's less egregious offenses. New renewable power generation is now the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. The challenge is delivering that cheap electricity to customers. Solar + battery is the fastest, cheapest way to get new power generation. That means solar + battery.Aside, IIRC, data centers are projected to demand just 5% our electricity supply. So society will be the net beneficiaries (on this axis).Were Big Tech to fund the generation and grid that we need, maybe society will indulge some of Big Tech's less egregious offenses. New renewable power generation is now the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. The challenge is delivering that cheap electricity to customers. That means solar + battery.Aside, IIRC, data centers are projected to demand just 5% our electricity supply. So society will be the net beneficiaries (on this axis).Were Big Tech to fund the generation and grid that we need, maybe society will indulge some of Big Tech's less egregious offenses. New renewable power generation is now the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. The challenge is delivering that cheap electricity to customers. But at this moment in time, today, we need gigawatts of new generation and the grid that can support it. That means solar + battery.Aside, IIRC, data centers are projected to demand just 5% our electricity supply. So society will be the net beneficiaries (on this axis).Were Big Tech to fund the generation and grid that we need, maybe society will indulge some of Big Tech's less egregious offenses. New renewable power generation is now the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. The challenge is delivering that cheap electricity to customers. Aside, IIRC, data centers are projected to demand just 5% our electricity supply. So society will be the net beneficiaries (on this axis).Were Big Tech to fund the generation and grid that we need, maybe society will indulge some of Big Tech's less egregious offenses. New renewable power generation is now the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. The challenge is delivering that cheap electricity to customers. Were Big Tech to fund the generation and grid that we need, maybe society will indulge some of Big Tech's less egregious offenses. New renewable power generation is now the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. The challenge is delivering that cheap electricity to customers. New renewable power generation is now the cheapest option, and getting cheaper. The challenge is delivering that cheap electricity to customers. I was looking at this one organization[0], they want to do a constitutional amendment. At this point, I cant disagree with them, but with this administration, I don't know what good its going to do. Without careful review of the document signed, it is impossible to verify which form of the above is applicable in this case.> A pledge is a public commitment or statement of intent, not a binding legal contract.This very well may be incorrect in this context and serves an exemplar as to why relying upon statistical document generation is not a recommended legal strategy.0 - https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1544 Without careful review of the document signed, it is impossible to verify which form of the above is applicable in this case.> A pledge is a public commitment or statement of intent, not a binding legal contract.This very well may be incorrect in this context and serves an exemplar as to why relying upon statistical document generation is not a recommended legal strategy.0 - https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1544 Without careful review of the document signed, it is impossible to verify which form of the above is applicable in this case.> A pledge is a public commitment or statement of intent, not a binding legal contract.This very well may be incorrect in this context and serves an exemplar as to why relying upon statistical document generation is not a recommended legal strategy.0 - https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1544 This very well may be incorrect in this context and serves an exemplar as to why relying upon statistical document generation is not a recommended legal strategy.0 - https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1544 That leaves us with the second definition, which says nothing about whether a pledge is legally binding. My goal was to illuminate that Claude is a product which produces the most statistically relevant content to a prompt submitted therein.> I'm not sure why your failure to do so should be taken up with law.com?The post to which I originally replied cited "Claude" as if it were an authoritative source. To which I disagreed and then provided a definition from law.com. Where is my failure?> Law.com's first definition is inapplicable.From the article: The pledge includes a commitment by technology companies to bring or buy electricity supplies for their datacenters, either from new power plants or existing plants with expanded output capacity. > That leaves us with the second definition, which says nothing about whether a pledge is legally binding.To which I originally wrote: Without careful review of the document signed, it is impossible to verify which form of the above is applicable in this case. > I'm not sure why your failure to do so should be taken up with law.com?The post to which I originally replied cited "Claude" as if it were an authoritative source. To which I disagreed and then provided a definition from law.com. Where is my failure?> Law.com's first definition is inapplicable.From the article: The pledge includes a commitment by technology companies to bring or buy electricity supplies for their datacenters, either from new power plants or existing plants with expanded output capacity. > That leaves us with the second definition, which says nothing about whether a pledge is legally binding.To which I originally wrote: Without careful review of the document signed, it is impossible to verify which form of the above is applicable in this case. The post to which I originally replied cited "Claude" as if it were an authoritative source. To which I disagreed and then provided a definition from law.com. Where is my failure?> Law.com's first definition is inapplicable.From the article: The pledge includes a commitment by technology companies to bring or buy electricity supplies for their datacenters, either from new power plants or existing plants with expanded output capacity. > That leaves us with the second definition, which says nothing about whether a pledge is legally binding.To which I originally wrote: Without careful review of the document signed, it is impossible to verify which form of the above is applicable in this case. > Law.com's first definition is inapplicable.From the article: The pledge includes a commitment by technology companies to bring or buy electricity supplies for their datacenters, either from new power plants or existing plants with expanded output capacity. > That leaves us with the second definition, which says nothing about whether a pledge is legally binding.To which I originally wrote: Without careful review of the document signed, it is impossible to verify which form of the above is applicable in this case. From the article: The pledge includes a commitment by technology companies to bring or buy electricity supplies for their datacenters, either from new power plants or existing plants with expanded output capacity. > That leaves us with the second definition, which says nothing about whether a pledge is legally binding.To which I originally wrote: Without careful review of the document signed, it is impossible to verify which form of the above is applicable in this case. The pledge includes a commitment by technology companies to bring or buy electricity supplies for their datacenters, either from new power plants or existing plants with expanded output capacity. > That leaves us with the second definition, which says nothing about whether a pledge is legally binding.To which I originally wrote: Without careful review of the document signed, it is impossible to verify which form of the above is applicable in this case. To which I originally wrote: Without careful review of the document signed, it is impossible to verify which form of the above is applicable in this case. Without careful review of the document signed, it is impossible to verify which form of the above is applicable in this case. That eliminates law.com definition 1.Law.com definition 2 is silent on whether pledges are binding.Thus ended your research.I don't know why you care if Claude.com is authoritative. Law.com isn't either, the authoritative legal references are paywalled. A law dictionary, as we've demonstrated by law.com's second definition's vagueness, isn't necessarily even the correct reference to consult.Your failure, I suppose, is that you provided worse information than Claude. I suppose you should have typed "Don't cite Claude please" and moved on. Law.com isn't either, the authoritative legal references are paywalled. A law dictionary, as we've demonstrated by law.com's second definition's vagueness, isn't necessarily even the correct reference to consult.Your failure, I suppose, is that you provided worse information than Claude. I suppose you should have typed "Don't cite Claude please" and moved on. Thus ended your research.I don't know why you care if Claude.com is authoritative. Law.com isn't either, the authoritative legal references are paywalled. A law dictionary, as we've demonstrated by law.com's second definition's vagueness, isn't necessarily even the correct reference to consult.Your failure, I suppose, is that you provided worse information than Claude. I suppose you should have typed "Don't cite Claude please" and moved on. I don't know why you care if Claude.com is authoritative. Law.com isn't either, the authoritative legal references are paywalled. A law dictionary, as we've demonstrated by law.com's second definition's vagueness, isn't necessarily even the correct reference to consult.Your failure, I suppose, is that you provided worse information than Claude. I suppose you should have typed "Don't cite Claude please" and moved on. Your failure, I suppose, is that you provided worse information than Claude. I suppose you should have typed "Don't cite Claude please" and moved on. The seven are doing some fancy accounting to pay for their data centers, but I don't think Larry, Sergey and others are taking out personal loans. "Less useful" is subjective and I shall not contend. And yes this particular group of professional liars provide every reason to be cynical. )And then it doesn't matter if you can enforce the promise because they're just promising to do things they were going to do anyway. )And then it doesn't matter if you can enforce the promise because they're just promising to do things they were going to do anyway. )And then it doesn't matter if you can enforce the promise because they're just promising to do things they were going to do anyway. )And then it doesn't matter if you can enforce the promise because they're just promising to do things they were going to do anyway. And then it doesn't matter if you can enforce the promise because they're just promising to do things they were going to do anyway. Congress could pass a new law requiring it, of course, but I think we all understand that this would not accomplish the administration's real goal of letting Trump prove he's the specialest boy and everyone has to give him what he wants.