Correct me but they are not unregulated but rather their misuse for datacenters, coupling dozens together to create health threatening emissions is not legal. At least it wasn’t until US authorities rubber stamped that environmental crime. Why else would data centers have hidden their use and lied about them, not just towards the public but also towards authorities?
Not just that. Gas turbines emit multiple times more nasty emissions than proper gas power plants that work by heating water instead of with inefficient motors.
Always has been.
Darn, they are better at mass surveillance than we are. Damn oligarchic capitalism.
The thing is, if that is so, the employment market will shift (because of a lack of experienced people) and become one dominated by employees again. That will lead also for short termers to the opposite situation described by her above.
What her narrative is interestingly completely ignoring is that not just employees need to gather experience, companies need to get experienced people to handle all that AI outfall and they will get much rarer if the above policy were to become the norm. In her scenario companies would select for rich parents instead of talent, these two things commonly to not correlate very strongly.
So companies are destroying their talent base over peanuts (entry salaries). They will have a serious disadvantage over other companies selecting for talent instead. Of course that is too long term for shareholder value people.
Only other thing required is to ignore the law and environmental protection regulations but that is no big deal in the US it seems.
Engagement, ie bait. It works it seems.
Which just screams “I am an alt-right snowflake”
In order to count for the it must be more than a sham, though.
I think you are confusing something here. He paid a German company to stop a wind power construction project in the US.
The US does not have a functioning certificate market, does it? And ind the EU those ultra durty gas turbines are illegal for use as power plant replacement for data centres, aren’t they?
I think what people miss here is that this is Americanisation that is the norm in most US movies. While the original movies were distributed by Warner Brothers, the producers were largely British, so were many other important people in the making of that movie. So they apparently stayed their ground in staying closer to the British source material.
In the remake those safeguards are gone. People just realise it because they see the contrast to the original. But look at other US movies, so much of it has fantasy scenarios that are still very “USified”, to not confuse the US audience too much. This is the most obvious when Hollywood takes up a successful foreign movie and makes a complete US “remake”.
What most people call AI are LLMs, they are fancy text autocomplete tools, and fundamentally incapable of awareness, nor could they ever develop one. Read it up.
If you’d rebuild the actual brain of a child authentically in silico that would be however indeed madness. We aren’t talking about human children though but about a fly. You have no idea what we are doing to flies in experiments, all sorts of terrible things indeed. Let it play doom is not nearly the worst.
This is not a current limitation, this is an inherent and systemic limitation of the underlying technology itself. Future AI might be different but it won’t be based primarily on LLMs then.
That story reads exactly how I would draft a Meta PR campaign to diffuse opposition to those surveillance glasses.
The EU is not a country, yet it does stuff that otherwise countries do, like legislating and judicating privacy laws. The correct term would have been “other political entity” but what is the point of that word picking again?
Like any political entity the EU can do many things at once, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Different institutions also have different interests. The Commission isn’t the primary driver behind chat control, a number of member states are. At the same time EU courts tend to be staunchly opposed to mass surveillance and in the European Parliament it depends on the party.
It is pretty much what the EU is doing. Tariffs on Chinese cars to compensate for their subsidies and brand agnostic subsidies for EVs on the domestic market (also applicable to Chinese cars of course, but equally to everyone else, levelling the playing field).
We have yet to see if the European producers are going to survive but they at least appear to have gotten the memo on at least competing in the sector of not oversized, affordable EVs again. Renault is pretty successful with its R5 and I would think also the new Renault Twingo should sell well for example.
In the US the car industry has pushed itself into a corner it cannot get out anymore, except maybe Tesla, which does know how to build efficient and somewhat affordable cars. It just chooses to go the opposite way because the guy at the top is a lunatic. The rest of the sector doesn’t even know how to do it, even if they wanted. They are heading to their Kodak/Nokia end game. Except Nokia found a way out by offloading the damage to a foreign company stupid enough to purchase the doomed branch and consequently refocusing on the other branches that it could secure a future (for Nokia that was mobile communication infrastructure).
Lobbying for walling off the US market while making laws to postpone the death of oversized combustion engine vehicles, will postpone the inevitable but only by so much. At some point the US will be the only underdeveloped country left, still choking in traffic fumes, I don’t think it would even get that far before everything collapses among US car producers.
Plenty of capitalist countries can have electric cars, including but not limited to Chinese cars. The problem isn’t capitalism here, it is the US.
Blasphemy. If there were a hell, you’d burn in it.