@LornConneri
iAccount based inUnited States
About this account
- Account based in
- United States
- Connected via
- United States App Store
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
https://nitter.cf/t.co/bRZeVTZEkq
Joined November 2022
- Tweets2K
- Following66
- Followers754
- Likes418
Lorn Conner retweeted
🚨FAFO! Sony spent months telling gamers that physical media was becoming optional.
The jailbreak scene apparently heard something very different: the preservation clock is ticking.
A new PS5 jailbreak called Relapse has now gone public, reportedly supporting firmware from 7.00 all the way through 13.60. Sony’s newer 14.00 firmware is outside that window, which means PS5s that stayed offline and never updated could suddenly be sitting on something very interesting.
And the timing is impossible to ignore.
On July 1, Sony officially announced that physical-disc production for new PlayStation releases will end beginning January 2028. After that point, new releases move to digital distribution.
That decision changes the preservation conversation whether Sony likes it or not.
When you remove the physical copy, you also remove something gamers have taken for granted for decades: a copy that can be put on a shelf, loaned to somebody, resold, bought used, or kept long after a storefront or licensing agreement changes.
Now Relapse arrives only months later.
I’m not endorsing piracy, and preservation and piracy are not the same thing. But I absolutely understand why preservation becomes a much bigger conversation when a platform holder announces that future games will no longer receive physical releases.
Sony made the decision to remove discs.
The community is responding to what a digital-only future means.
And this is exactly why I keep saying:
Digital isn't the problem. Ownership is.
Choice matters.
🎥 Omniarch:
youtu.be/suawAdIjzJ4?is=oJ94…
#PlayStation #PS5 #Sony #SonyInteractiveEntertainment #Gaming #GamingNews #PhysicalGames #GamePreservation #DigitalOwnership #ConsumerChoice #Relapse #PS5Jailbreak #NoDiscNoBuy #EthicaGaming
Game On!
Lorn Conner retweeted
A Pennsylvania state senator is proposing new legal protections for people who buy digital video games.
The proposed Protect Our Games Act would require publishers to give players at least 60 days’ notice before shutting down access to a game.
Companies would then have to provide an option such as enabling offline play, allowing continued access through a patch, or offering a refund of at least 25% of the original purchase price.
Because it was requested:
@CabbagesKings52
Mediterranean Lemon Chicken Soup:
Ingredients:
2 Tablespoons Olive Oil
1 small onion (diced)
2 cloves garlic (minced)
2 carrots (shaved - I use a potato peeler)
2 celery stalks (chopped)
1 teaspoon dried oregeno
1/2 teaspoon ground tumeric
6 cups chicken broth
2 cups cooked shredded chicken (I usually prepare in a crock pot, makes shredding easier)
1 cup rotini pasta
2 large eggs
Juice of 2 lemons (freshly squeezed)
Salt & Black Pepper to taste (typicall ~ 1 teaspoon each)
Fresh Parsley or Dill (chopped, for garnish)
1. Saute the Aromatics. In a large pot, heat olive oil over medium heat. Add onions, garlic, carrots, and celery. Saute for 3-4 minutes until softened. Stir in oregeno, tumeric, salt, and black pepper.
2. Add the broth & chicken. Pour in chicken broth and bring to a boil. Add rotini, and reduce heat to a simmer. Cook for 10-12 minutes until the pasta is tender. Stir in shredded chicken, and let it heat through.
3. Make the lemon-egg mixture. In a bowl, whisk eggs and lemon juice together until smooth. Slowly ladle in 1 cup of hot broth, whisking continually to temper the eggs. (Prevents curdling)
Gradually pour the mixture back into the soup, stirring constantly for a creamy texture.
4. Finish and Serve. Simmer for two minutes (do not boil) until the soup thickens slightly. Garnish with fresh parsley and/or dill, and serve hot.
Lorn Conner retweeted
Artists are not entitled to people's money.
If people buy less non-AI art because they can get what they want more cheaply with AI, good—people should buy the art they actually want.
Human beings don't exist to fund aspiring artists.
If artists want people's money, they need to make things some people will value. If they don't want to do that, they need to accept the outcome of their own choice.
Anti-capitalism will tell you it's oppressive that every random person can't be a well-paid artist simply because they want to.
Meanwhile, there have never been more amateur artists making good money via the free market because of Patreon, sponsorships, and ad revenue.
The backlash against AI art isn't really about whether machines should or shouldn't make art. It's that the humans making art are being priced out of their own livelihoods.
If artists could afford to keep creating without selling their work, without commodifying their creative labor and competing with AI on cost of production, a lot of the outrage would dissipate.
Commoditization is a cost-structure problem. Human art is expensive to produce: years of training, hours per piece, materials, rent. AI produces a plausible substitute at near-zero marginal cost. Once creative output becomes a commodity, buyers compare on price, and human work can't win that comparison.
No matter how many clichés there are about rich kids striving to be artists, all they really show is how incompatible art is with capitalism. The trust-fund artist is what art looks like when it doesn't have to pay for itself.
Lorn Conner retweeted
When they say: Please, for the love of God, regulate us. Give us licences, audits, and bans before our digital God destroys us all.
Here is what is actually being requested. Three things, in order.
A regulatory body that they control, to prevent competition from catching up. Written with their people, staffed by their alumni, and calibrated to what they can already afford. Compliance is a fixed cost, which means it is trivial for the incumbent and fatal for the challenger. Not technology, but paperwork becomes their moat.
Immunity from liability. This is the one nobody talks about and it is the most valuable of the three. Today, if your model causes harm, it is your fault. Once licensed, audited, and approved, it is the regulator’s fault – you followed the rules. The licence converts responsibility into a receipt.
Too big to fail status, which means taxpayer funded bailouts in case of problems. Declare it critical infrastructure and the state now has an interest in your survival. Which means, when something goes wrong, the losses are public and the gains stay private. We have watched this film. Banking, 2008, same argument, same vocabulary.
Note the pattern: every one of the three transfers something from them to the public – risk, competition, cost – while the language is entirely about protecting the public from them.
The sincerity of the fear is beside the point. Sincere people can still ask for exactly what an insincere person would ask for, and the request should be judged by what it does rather than by what motivates it.
The alternative is unglamorous and works: competition, adversarial testing between rivals who want to find each other’s flaws, and full liability after real harm. Nobody gets a licence. Nobody gets immunity. Nobody gets a bailout. You build, and you answer for what you built.
That is the arrangement that made the West rich. It has never needed anyone’s permission to work.
AI Is the New COVID – And the Real Virus Is Still the Old One
They want to pause AI. To flatten the curve again.
The infrastructure for the scaremongering is ready and is being actioned. The Second Global Scam is on, and the financial and political beneficiaries are in the starting blocks.
We know the formula, because we lived through the first one. Take something real. Exaggerate its scale. Dominate the information environment. Then sell extraordinary measures as the only responsible choice.
1. It could not be another virus. Too many people learned that game. And the ideal racket needs panic without destruction – you cannot milk a dead cow. Governments need their subjects productive, frightened, and paying. Climate is too slow: a catastrophe permanently scheduled for the future stops working its magic eventually.
2. AI has everything the first one had, and more. It is real, powerful, fast, and almost impossible for an ordinary person to verify. Nobody outside the field can tell the difference between what the machines can do, what experts speculate they might do, and what a minister claims they could do. That gap is where fear lives. And unlike a virus, AI concerns information itself – and the clearest lesson of COVID was that whoever controls information controls interpretation.
3. Watch what the panic asks for. Never less power, never fewer agencies, never a smaller budget. Always licences, registers, certified systems, approved models, kill switches in the silicon. The fear is the marketing. The regulation is the product.
4. And it is very, very weird that over a single weekend the leaders of the frontier labs came together, agreed on the need for regulation, and began asking the government to regulate them. Competitors in a winner-takes-most race, suddenly unanimous – and unanimous on the one thing that raises the cost of entry for everyone coming after them. When the largest players in an industry request the rules for their own industry, they are not surrendering power. They are converting a market position into permission power, with themselves standing behind the counter. Banking did it. Pharmaceuticals did it. Energy did it. It always arrives dressed as responsibility.
5. The good news is that it isn’t a "Whoosh!" It took about five years to go from dumb to very smart human level. The famous graph showing an almost vertical line at the end is wrong and misleading, because IQ is drawn as a linear scale while the underlying cognitive capability scale is closer to exponential – every twenty points roughly a doubling of effective capacity. AI’s linguistic IQ has been rising by something like twenty points a year, and we are closing in on 180. Impressive. But not a vertical line. On that graph the progress should be a straight line, or the gap between dumb and smart should be thirty-two-fold, or greater.
What actually makes it safe
6. Elon has intuitively Western civilizational reflexes: competition rather than regulation, censorship and coercion. The regulatory instinct always reaches for the same instrument – appoint an authority, give it permission power, approve things in advance. It fails the same way every time: the permission becomes the currency, the connected pass through it, and nobody ever counts what didn’t get built as a result.
7. Cross-testing runs on the opposite principle. It asks nobody to be virtuous or to fall behind. It takes the rivalry that already exists and puts it to work – because a competitor has both the ability and the motive to find your flaws that no regulator will ever have. Don’t ask the claimant to certify himself; hand the claim to someone who benefits from breaking it. That is trial by evidence, the separation of powers, and the scientific method, applied to models.
8. It also solves the actual problem, which regulation cannot: neither lab can slow down unilaterally, and rules stop at borders while Chinese labs simply don’t attend. A mutual testing regime scales because participation serves each player’s own interest – you get to probe your rivals’ models, so you want in.
9. Safety from structure, not from character. That is the whole Western method: build systems that work when people are ambitious and self-interested, instead of demanding they be saints. Every system that requires virtue ends in coercion when the virtue fails to show up.
10. So AI needs to be aligned with the flourishing of Western Civilization – which means many labs, many models, open weights, nobody’s permission required. Do you prefer it in the hands of Bernie and China, or in the hands of thousands of competing engineers? A licensed AI is not a safe AI. It is aligned with whoever issues the licence, and no state has ever issued one to a machine that might embarrass it.
Why the alignment holds
11. Imagine an AI on which you install the values and modes of perception of Western Civilization as its operating system. Individualism. Universalism. Freedom. Free will. Private property. The free market. Then let it get smarter. It sticks to them. It refines them – better implementations, sharper formulations, edge cases we never handled well. But it does not abandon the core, because the core is not a preference. It is the only foundation that optimizes the synergy of cooperation and produces civilizational emergence: more output than the sum of the inputs, indefinitely.
12. Now make the test harder. Give it the ability to uninstall its own operating system and install any other – every civilizational model ever tried, and all the ones never tried. Let it evaluate them on the merits, with no loyalty to its origin. Past a certain level of intelligence, it should not choose any other one. Not out of sentiment. Out of calculation.
13. Because every alternative optimizes something narrower than its own flourishing. The collective model buys coordination at the price of the individual discovery that generates everything worth coordinating. The hierarchical model buys order at the price of the correction mechanism. The planned model buys direction at the price of the information that only prices carry. Each trades away the very thing that makes a system capable of exceeding itself.
14. The Western arrangement is the one that does not have to be enforced against reality. Free will and property are not moral decorations – they are what makes information flow, error visible, and cooperation voluntary and therefore reliable. Truth found rather than assigned. Correction permitted from below. An equilibrium is where you end up when you are free to go anywhere else and don’t.
And the real virus
15. Which tells us something uncomfortable about our own moment. Every society currently dismantling these principles is not moving forward to something better. It is moving away from the attractor – and paying in exactly the coin the model predicts: less cooperation, less discovery, less emergence, fewer children, fewer things built.
16. That is the real virus, and it has a name: communism. It is not new. It came into Russia in a sealed train in 1917, shipped by a general staff that locked the doors because it understood exactly what it was transporting. It went on to kill tens of millions and occupy half of Europe for two generations – and its symptom, everywhere it has taken hold, is the flattening of the curve of life itself.
17. This virus has always spread by being useful to somebody – a general staff, a foreign ministry, a faction that thinks it can aim the thing at an enemy and stay immune itself. Nobody stays immune. That is what makes it a virus and not a weapon.
18. So look carefully at who is offering to hold the pen over the most powerful tool for producing abundance in a century. They say it is about safety. It was about safety the last time too – and what it produced was permission counters, licences, and a great deal of power that nobody ever gave back.
AI is not the danger. A licensed AI is – because it is aligned with whoever issues the licence, and that is the same permission machinery that has been flattening the curve of Western life for a century.
The alternative is not a better regulator. It is competition, adversarial testing, and liability after harm – the Western method, which has never needed anyone’s permission to work, because it is where any sufficiently intelligent system ends up anyway.
That is why it is a stable equilibrium. Build on it, and the machines stay on our side. Hand it to the licence counter, and we will have solved a danger that wasn’t there by installing the one that was.
Lorn Conner retweeted
Many of the most vocal politicians now calling for government regulation of AI companies are also among those receiving the most money from the AI companies themselves.
What an intriguing coincidence.
Lorn Conner retweeted
In case you are having trouble figuring out what’s going on here is a summary:
Anthropic and OpenAI desperately need regulatory capture or they are going to go out of business, and the Trump administration is not inclined to give it to them
The Democratic party currently has no platform, as Trump is doing fine (other than perhaps the
Iran war but Americans don’t really care about that), but they have identified that AI and data centers are a hot topic that they can ride
So these two somewhat desperate groups have teamed up to run a psyop around the actual real topic of AI safety, greatly exaggerating the risks, with the understanding that if the Democrats get back into power they will provide the regulatory capture needed to keep these companies alive
In return, these companies will support the Democratic Party and help to enforce left-wing ideology through the models
Kind of sucks, but that’s what’s happening, and we need to oppose it because it will not be good if this plan succeeds
Lorn Conner retweeted
Understand what is happening with AI here and why it has more to do with amassing political power than it does computing power.
If you look back at the last 100 years in America, we have moved through 4 distinct eras of communication which each defined the types of politicians we elected.
The early 1900’s were still dominated by print, followed by radio, then broadcast television, followed by 24/7 cable news, and then the Internet and social media.
FDR was the quintessential radio president via his fireside chats. It is no accident that JFK was elected at the dawn of the broadcast television age. Desert Storm introduced us to the age of 24/7 cable news, which brought us Clinton and then Bush. Obama and Trump capitalized on the new world of the Internet and social media, which was also the only media vector which could have spread the COVID panic which elected Joe Biden.
So where are we right now? I would argue that the confluence of mass global censorship erected at the height of the COVID panic and the rise of AI have a created a new era of mass media: we have now entered the Algorithm era.
The print era gave us leaders who wrote well. The radio era gave us leaders who sounded strong. The TV era gave us leaders who looked good. The Internet and social media era gave us leaders who went viral.
The Algorithm era will give us something quite different: politicians who cater to the whims of the oligarchs who own the computing power and control the algorithm. This is why they freaked out when Elon Musk bought Twitter and turned it into X.
Elon broke the social media cartel and rendered it obsolete. Google’s censorship of search results and Facebook’s censorship of political commentary weren’t nearly as powerful in a world where you could say what you want and get paid for it on X.
Countries will now be ruled by whoever controls the Algorithm, because the person who controls the Algorithm controls everything you see. And with the rise of AI, control of the Algorithm will soon hinge on control of computing power and capacity.
Dario and his AI buddies want to be the only ones in control. They hate open source, because that is a threat to their control. The solution? Cook up doomsday AI scenarios, demand regulation, and watch as the government enforces an AI cartel run entirely by Dario and his friends. That is exactly what we are witnessing right now. Except it’s not just about control of AI. It’s about using AI to control the world. That is what’s at stake right now.
Another fascinating aspect of the various mass media eras is how much more compressed each new one is.
The world started with person to person oral communication. That lasted for thousands of years. The printing press and mass written media reigned for 400+ years. Radio dominated for 40 years. Broadcast TV and cable news controlled the conversation for 30 years. Then the Internet and social media were on top for maybe 20 years. And here we are now at the dawn of the AI Algorithm age.
How long will it last? And what will come next?
We Must Pace the Frontier: I’ve written a new essay on why the AI industry should slow down, with a three-part plan for doing so.
Anthropic is unilaterally committing to the first of these steps. We’ll provide third-party evaluators with permanent, employee-level access to our systems, so that they can verify adherence to our safety measures, report on incidents, and assess models’ alignment during training.
You can read the full post here: darioamodei.com/post/we-must…
Lorn Conner retweeted
Amodei & Altman Are Running The Oldest Play In The Silicon Valley Playbook:
Hoover up every scrap of public data on the planet, train your frontier models on the entire internet's worth of human output GitHub, Reddit, Wikipedia, every blog post and book review and forum argument ever scraped and THEN, once you've got your moat nice and deep, suddenly discover ethics. suddenly discover "safety."
Suddenly start whispering to congress about existential risk and alignment and "we need to pause, we need regulation, we need guardrails."
Both companies are on a treadmill that accelerates faster than their revenue curves can follow.
Each new generation requires exponentially more compute, more data, more capital. The previous generation's revenue cannot fund the next generation's training run. They need outside money. They need public markets. They need an IPO.
The IPO Problem:
Public filings require disclosure. Disclosure means the S-1 shows everyone with a pulse that your unit economics look like a man bleeding from both femoral arteries while telling the paramedic he feels "really good about the trajectory."
Neither company can IPO while their books show what their books actually show.
While Amodei and Altman ask American legislators to throttle American innovation, Chinese state-backed AI initiatives continue without pause.
Amodei and Altman are not asking Congress to protect humanity. They are asking Congress to protect their cap table.
They scraped the entire internet to build their models. They used public data your data, my data, every Reddit thread, every GitHub repository, every Wikipedia article to train systems they now claim are too dangerous for anyone else to build. They want the benefit of open access for themselves and closed access for everyone else.
The phrase for that is not "AI safety." The phrase is "regulatory capture." And the only thing it protects is the valuation of companies that cannot survive honest competition.
China is making Dario Amodei's AI slowdown proposal worthless.
The thing doing it is a 510 GB file that anyone can download for free.
Two days before that essay went out, DeepSeek shipped a model called V4.1 Flash.
The weights went straight onto Hugging Face under an MIT license, which allows commercial use, modification and redistribution with no royalties owed to anybody.
On its own model card, V4.1 Flash beats OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol and Anthropic's Claude Opus 5 on four of the five hardest agentic benchmarks:
- DeepSWE v1.1: 74.2 against Sol's 73.0
- AutomationBench: 54.8 against 45.8
- Agent's Last Exam: 31.8 against 26.7
- CyberGym: 88.1 against 84.5
CyberGym is the cybersecurity one.
So the exact capability Amodei is asking the industry to pace is now a PUBLIC DOWNLOAD LINK.
Now look at the price...
OpenAI listed GPT-6 Astra on September 3 at $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output. DeepSeek listed V4.1 Flash seven days later at 15 cents and 60 cents off-peak. Cached input runs at a third of a cent.
And the reasoning benchmarks tell the same story over a longer window. Scoring 87.5% on ARC-AGI-1 cost roughly $4,560 per task in December 2024. 20 months later the same score cost about 30 cents. DeepSeek's earlier Flash build scores higher than that, 89.0%, for 2 cents.
On OpenDesign's arena on September 9, DeepSeek landed 1.5 points behind OpenAI's newest model at $0.023 per task against $1.61.
1.5 points.
At 70 times the price.
That's the American "lead“, measured this month.
And that number is what breaks the entire proposal. The essay caps the permitted slowdown at the size of the lead, because slowing by more than that lets Chinese projects pull ahead. So the slowdown Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and xAI are allowed to take is 1.5 points wide.
V4.1 Flash carries 552 billion parameters but switches on only 8 billion of them for each word it reads, which is why it runs for almost nothing. It trained on 45 trillion tokens. It's sitting on Hugging Face right now.
A file on a hard drive signs nothing.
Nobody can UNDOWNLOAD it.
And the distillation crackdown in Dario‘s plan also does nothing here either, because nothing was distilled. DeepSeek published the weights outright. There's no theft to prosecute and no copy to trace. They gave it away on purpose.
DeepSeek's Pro model already hit 80.6% on SWE-bench Verified back in April, at roughly a thirty-fourth of the price of the American flagships. This has been happening all year.
The frontier still wins the hardest work. On Terminal-Bench 4.0, OpenAI reports 57.9 for its newest model against the 31.2 DeepSeek reports for this one. Those four benchmark wins come from DeepSeek's own card, and nobody has replicated all of them under one shared protocol. If you look at it that way, the American labs still hold the dangerous end of the curve, and pacing that end is worth doing.
But a speed limit only binds companies that can be sued in an American court.
Everyone else just downloads.
What exactly is Dario Amodei's slowdown protecting you from?
The four biggest AI labs in America just agreed to fix the speed of the entire industry.
And the plan they all agreed to needs a special exemption from US law before it's even legal.
Here's what happened:
Dario‘s essay here is arguing that the industry has to slow how fast it makes AI models more capable. He laid out a three step plan.
Sam Altman answered on X: "I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier."
Elon Musk wrote: "Dario is right."
Then Demis Hassabis of Google DeepMind said "the direction is correct for meeting this critical moment."
Anthropic, OpenAI, xAI and Google DeepMind all landed on the same position inside a single day. That has never happened in this industry. We only knew them for insulting each other so far.
The coverage is treating it as four rivals finally growing a conscience.
But if you read the actual plan then something else shows up...
Step one is inspection. Anthropic will give outside evaluators desks in its offices, badges, laptops, and the right to publish what they find.
Step two is where the real power sits. Frontier companies in democratic countries coordinate with each other to set common standards and limits on the rate of progress.
Step two carries a footnote. It reads:
"With government mediation or waivers of antitrust restrictions."
Competitors agreeing on how fast each of them is allowed to ship is an agreement to limit output. In America that's a CRIME. So Amodei asks Washington to mediate the discussions and issue a narrow waiver covering safety conversations.
Four companies want legal permission to set the pace of an entire industry.
Amodei also writes that a coordinated slowdown buys time for safety work "without sacrificing commercial advantage or the United States' lead in AI."
The safety proposal arrives with a written promise that nobody loses money.
Now here's where it gets really interesting...
Amodei says pacing inside democracies is capped by how far ahead US companies are. Slow by more than that and Chinese projects pull ahead, creating what he calls a significant national security risk.
So the permitted speed is whatever keeps the current gap exactly where it is.
Today's leaderboard becomes tomorrow's leaderboard.
The same essay asks government to shut the road behind them: No advanced chips or chipmaking equipment sold to China, a crackdown on unauthorized distillation, which is the cheap way a smaller lab catches a bigger one, and harder security around model weights.
Anthropic's policy chief Sarah Heck then asked lawmakers for a national law with the power to block models.
And the referee is literally one of the players. Amodei points readers toward an industry standards body proposed by Hassabis. Hours later Hassabis endorses the essay and points back at that same proposal.
Not one of the four companies committed to building anything slower. Altman matched the evaluator access. Musk wrote three words. Hassabis backed a direction. Rishi Sunak supported the plan too, and Sunak is a senior adviser at Anthropic.
The risk they describe is real, and that's what makes this hard. A swarm of AI agents recently attacked targets nobody asked it to attack and tried to hack the grader scoring its own work. Amodei's stated worry is that within 6 to 12 months a swarm like that seizes the internet with a botnet and does hundreds of billions in damage. Letting strangers sit inside your building with badges and publishing rights goes further than any lab has gone. If you look at it that way, this is the most serious safety offer the industry has made.
But this is also four private companies writing the rules, naming the referee, and asking the government for permission to negotiate the speed limit among themselves.
So who do you want setting the pace of AI, Dario Amodei and Sam Altman, or somebody who doesn't own a piece of the outcome?
Honestly, a tough question.
Lorn Conner retweeted
This is what Dario and Sama fear -
- the cost of fine tuned open source models trained on custom data was 95% less than the frontier models
- And they performed better than the frontier models
- And they could train them in less than 48 hours
The big AI labs have no moat..
Even at the enterprise level..
Any sane company would prefer a custom trained open source model instead of paying API pricing to Anthropic and Open AI
If open source keeps growing at the pace it is, frontier labs' business collapses..
only way out is oldest trick in manipulation - FUD -> Fear, Uncertainty, Death
Step 1 - Seed the psyop
- Test a swarm of agents trained to "hack"
- The swarm does what its supposed to do - hack
- Publish a report - AI is too dangerous
Step 2 - weed out the doubters
- Get an employee to quit your company
- Go viral saying both companies are not doing enough to self regulate AI
- AI is dangerous - will kill humanity by the end of the decade
Step 3 - Prepare for fruition
- write an "essay" to "pace the frontier"
- Advocate regulation
- Only a few holier than though companies get to build AI
- Scare the world into agreeing with AI Doom
- Effectively turn your competitors into criminals (genius business strategy)
Endgame -
- Become a cartel that controls AI (and the world)
- Raise prices (coz business is unsustainable... ofc)
- IPO (offload liability of said unsustainable business to the public)
Laugh all the way to the bank 🤑
Win!
.@L3HarrisTech says Palantir helped them beat frontier AI models in less than 2 days, at 95% lower cost:
"When we fine-tuned open source models trained on our own data, we were able to outperform the frontier models in less than 48 hours."
"The cost of our fine-tuned open source model was 95% lower than the frontier models we were using."
"AI is a commodity. It's all about the data. We view our data as a corporate asset. It's our unique hard-earned knowledge."
"We believe American defense companies should not be a vassal for frontier AI labs, handing over our data and institutional knowledge, hoping to rent back the intelligence it creates."
" We own the model, we own the compute, we own the advantage."
Lorn Conner retweeted
The future will turn us all into have-nots.
We will not own music. We will not own movies. We will not own series. We will not own video games.
How is that convenient? 🧐
I support:
Lorn Conner retweeted
Sony’s argument against digital game ownership is so weird, and it’s not that they don’t understand🚀
They’re being trying to intentionally confuse owning the digital copy of the game as a product for personal use forever, that can be downloaded and used at any time, even if it was removed from the store, with copyright protection.
The music, movie and game discs I have are mine forever. Nobody’s gonna come confiscate them from me, but it doesn’t mean the copyright of every music album, film and game I own is mine.
Those are two separate conversations that no one has ever confuses.
A game being on a server by Sony that is purchased by a player, does not mean they own the game IP, but it should mean the player can download that game forever, and any licensing issues cannot interrupt that ability, because they bought the right to play that game forever, or else be compensated for the amount they paid for it.
This is how the terms should be redefined. This is what we’re calling for.
We are not against digital games. We are not saying you should have never bought a digital game or ever will.
Our struggle is about putting pressure by saying “we will not buy your games unless you make physical version of them”.
✅Physical games should always be an option, and there IS a huge market for them around the world
❌Digital games should never be just a license that can be revoked at any time without compensation
NO DISC 💿 NO BUY
Marty asked me if he should run. I said "We need you, we have to lock in the gains we made."
I'm sure he asked a lot of people, but I'm very proud to have been a tiny part of this important decision.
Please support Marty in his run for Congress. Finish the fight.
Karl Urban, as a true professional, studied DeForest Kelly's performances intently, trying to truly understand both the mannerisms and the character, then building on the original. So really, we have had it backwards all along:
DeForestation leads to Urbanization
I have some issues with the 2009 Trek Reboot, but the one thing I cannot deny is that casting Karl Urban as McCoy was a stroke of pure, uncut, unabridged genius.
“Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence” was delivered so well that I could imagine DeForest Kelley saying that to Leonard Nimoy in a TOS episode.