

If Sam believes that, will he replace himself with AI and retire already? Pretty please? … It’s so easy to catch the ultra-rich in their lies; they simply can’t be bothered to speak believably.


If Sam believes that, will he replace himself with AI and retire already? Pretty please? … It’s so easy to catch the ultra-rich in their lies; they simply can’t be bothered to speak believably.


This is almost correct. In reality, rich people inside Google got richer. That was their sole goal. That is all they wanted.
Because look, we all told everyone that the AI bubble was in fact a bubble, and that Google was destroying its own search engine, which of course would hurt them later. On the one hand, you could argue they didn’t believe us. But I think they didn’t hedge their bets because they didn’t care either way.
Fuck the company’s future if you can get rich now, am I right? Never underestimate human greed.


And this is why you don’t turn to Bluesky. If they’ll censor this, they’ll censor anything.


Lol this is why you don’t seriously invest in crypto, folks.


Nobody cares about Reddit these days. The bots took it over years ago. Like so many things, there was a time when it mattered.


This is simpler than you think. AI is a bubble. It is a giant bubble.
Many people, including many government workers, are getting rich right now by riding the bubble. They and their funders have zero interest in worrying about what will happen when it bursts.
(Also, AI is vaporware. It can’t replace workers in huge numbers. So nobody serious is actually worried about that… Of course there are some occupations that have shifted, but far fewer than you would expect.)


This is a title that’s factually true, but in reality highly deceptive. The AI companies are riding bubbles and the prices they decide don’t reflect the actual cost of anything. That’s what a bubble is. So the title should read that the AI companies are gouging some of their customers because they can.


I think it’s simpler than that. I think the AI snake oil sales people realized that corporate executives want to give themselves bonuses. And if you propose this magical technology, that’s going to change everything, they can pretend for several years but it’s actually going to change everything, and pay themselves a lot of money in the meantime.
It’s greedy people relying on other greedy people so that some of them can get richer.


Why should the argument source matter? Because the whole point of social media is for people to communicate with other people. We want to share ideas with each other.
If all you can do is copy/paste, you’re a failure. If you were in school, you’d fail for plagiarism. You’re wasting electricity and wasting our time. Sorry.
Or, if all you want to do is share someone else’s idea, just put a URL to the place where they said it. Don’t pretend it’s your contribution when it’s not.


Right but that’s a pointless side discussion. English has fucked up grammar and spelling but it’s a major global language. Cope?


70% of the internet? No. The web? Yes, maybe. These are not the same thing.


I agree, but if it’s WW3 then you’re fucked either way. Prepping is no solution. Do it if you want, tho, either way.


The sky is falling… Except it isn’t. Standard nonsense self advertising. And yes, vulnerabilities exist and canleasd to badness. We agree. It has always been so.
Trump’s pardons are an interesting thing. The more he pardons people now, the less leverage he has in the future, and he needs to hold onto that power for as long as he can. Cuz basically, he’s about to get fucked. The Epstein Files will be coming back into focus, and everyone who already was pardoned now has to testify under oath about everything when Congress calls them in for questioning. And if Trump doesn’t have allies (i.e., people who owe him shit), then he’ll be toasty in short order.
Also, it’s hard to pardon someone effectively if you can’t figure out what crimes they committed. Who was actually employed by DOGE? What authority did they actually have? The DoJ lawyers refuse to explain that, because it would expose them to liability. So, because the legal landscape is ambiguous (from the DoJ’s perspective and intent), the pardons themselves are likely to miss large swaths of criminal activity.