A lot of this AI stuff seems to be about creating a feeling of inevitability along with FOMO among investors who don’t know any better, while hoping the tech catches up to the expectations before everyone realizes it’s not quite there yet. Reminds me a lot of the Dot-Com bubble where everyone could see the potential but the ideas were too early for both the culture and the tech. Unfortunately dark gpus have a much shorter shelf life than dark fiber.
This is a systems problem, not a human problem. It was inevitable that any weaknesses in the system would eventually be exploited. We should focus on fixing the system so this cannot happen again.
Complex systems have more unintended behaviors and failure modes, and interventions create new problems you didn’t anticipate. This is literally the Law of unintended consequences, and the more detailed you make the law, the harder it is to update to correct, current or actual circumstances.
I disagree completely. There are a lot of tweaks which need to be made to the various mechanisms of American government, but ultimately there's no system you can design which can fix the problem of "approximately half the country is in a personality cult to one guy who demands absolute power, and his supporters in government refuse to enforce the law against him". Or at least no system which is remotely recognizable as democratic. How could that possibly work?
It's user error, and trying to fix it without changing the minds and wants of those users just makes them angrier that "the Elites are undermining the will of the People" or whatever.
Unfortunately, long before it Trump it was demonstrated again and again that enforcing the law against government is, perhaps not impossible in extreme cases, but 100x harder than the reverse.
Capitalists only care about capital. Witness how fast the DEI stuff was jettisoned once it was determined to be unprofitable under the current administration.
DEI programs were (largely) incentivized by one political faction in the United States primarily via legal rather than market mechanisms, and in response to this a rival political faction explicitly ran on undoing those legal mechanisms to disincentivize DEI programs.
Of course one of the ways the government can enact policy is by making something cheap or expensive for firms participating in capitalism to do, which incentivizes their behavior; but characterizing DEI programs as something that corporations jettisoned because it was determined to be "unprofitable under the current administration" ignores the fact that the current administration explicitly promised to end DEI programs in a political campaign in a democracy and then won an election.
Would this count as libel? It’s a publication of a false, damaging statement in a fixed form (writing, print, picture, broadcast) that harms a person's reputation, exposing them to hatred, contempt, or ridicule.
