Thinking these are at their current level relevant to climate change, is a level of ignorance that I'd almost put on a tin-foil hat to discuss how the fossil industry is feeding an anti-AI campaign of ignorance.

I frankly do not understand the question, and it reads like one you'd find in a survey written by somebody who does not understand the question themselves.

I do not need to preach to the choir, so I will use an awkward analogy for the people treating this like a survey:

OSS is like cash, and closed source is investing in PE (and in this case historically very underwhelming returns).

Cash gives opportunity in every dimension you mention, including the option to jump into a PE. There is no need to worry or monitor its value beyond depreciation.

OSS provides me every opportunity I want, at no recurring overhead costs, and only drawing on my attention when I want it.

Beyond that: buying into an ecosystem has a network-effect value, and the ability for any 1 person to add value to the ecosystem is dependent by how easy it is to add value to it - and here OSS has some natural pros.

But i do not think these things matter. These are considerations for people looking to build near the edge of whats possible, and those are a niche. If you're looking for what you can sell, for any problem there are several orders of magnitude more people that dont know whats already possible and just want things made 'easy'.

I've seen the same logical fallacy used everywhere; including people hyping Russia and China.

Something i cant find any reliable data for, but would help for a sense of scale: How much use before its equal to training?

I.e. assuming you have the training data and setup, and we only care for compute - How hours of using eg Kimi K3 / Fable, for it to equal the compute required to train it?

No.

Authors do not infringe on IP when they read another's book, nor should the lumber company be able to dictate how I use planks and if I can resell them if i'm done with them.

You're framing it as if the added value of the author or lumber company, awards them consideration when somebody uses the products to create more value.

IP law was always a big mess, and these questions cross far into ideology instead of law; but I do not understand people who think we need an ideology where more IP-law is good for society.

You only write a report if you want the exemption.

The hypothetical business you're imaging shouldn't be looking for an exemption.

The law's effect on small business is conceptually not too different from eg laws against dumping toxic sludge.

Not related to the article, but I've seen this thought before and I think its wrong.

This isn't what good academic instructions gets you. Instead, they provide a systematic approach to learning foundational/core formalisms which let you recognize other problems as being of the same kind.

An academic background should let the person reason from a place of pre-explored essential complexity, instead of first having to rediscover & deconstruct the accidental complexity.

Building scar tissue about why things are a certain way is practical experience for (non)academics alike.

Game theorists, like any academic, prefer models with the least number of assumptions and (transitive) dependencies.

My issue is with thinking this presumed fixed point was created with an elegant model (and thus conclude it's relatively interesting to study).

If you deconstruct the model - i.e. look through its full dependency tree to state the assumptions - It's not simple or elegant.

Other assumptions like modeling without irrational behavior are purer in that sense.

Datacenter builders now have to add security so it doesn't happen a second time, perhaps even add it in more places around the world, and the overall attractiveness of building a datacenter in the region go down.

The CO2 not emitted by opening a later easily offsets curing by orders of magnitude.

To fully model it you'd have to account for the demand being moved as other centers will pick up the load and try to model either the reduced output and reduced future-demand at the temporarily higher cost.

That's too much effort for me, but "concrete curing causes more CO2" is jumping to a conclusion.

The conjecture requires a theory of time in the form of periods/rounds to reduce price to zero - but wants to ignore time when it comes to information spread and product value.

Pinning a variable to any 1 extreme can be very informative, but when the variable has to both exists to justify the presumption, but also be ignored in the model - you're not going to find an elegant basis for a grand-theory-structure to add corrective terms onto.

Instead, you'll just get a mess of variables from over-fitted data.

However, this is the 5th product post in 2 weeks that proclaims that AI use is shifting, and why [insert tradeoffs] are the perfect fit.

Paradigms shift don't happen in the release announcements.

I suspect this is an AI-ism, making all the release posts sound so paradigmshiftery.

There is a big difference between: Government demands every website to have age verification, and government supported scheme by which service can opt into age verification.

As of now, American private spyware is actively filling the demand.

I get the feeling some privacy advocates are approaching the choice as a tier system, with government being the worst case.

I don't see it.

The only viable solution for the future of privacy is to not be dependent on the giant platforms in the first place.

.... What?

You open up with the calculator argument. Great. Then state "on the flip side". Ok.

And then declare it very simple in your mind when there is _only_ the flip side.

The whole issue is the not-simple gray area and where each of us believes the line between empowered human and brainless idiot is drawn.

I browsed through the Bun code following Kelly's post, and decided to have Codex replace all my Bun usage with Deno.

If what you think is true, why did Farage step down call the election in the first place?

It seems rather clear it was a PR stunt he knows he'll win in this district, which lets him distract from his own corruption scandals.

But if you think there is some other reason I'd be interesting to hear the theory.