Paying a ransom doesn’t buy trust: It buys hope from people who have already proven they’re willing to extort you! If criminals learn that victims pay, asking for a second ransom isn’t a betrayal of the deal. It’s just the next logical business decision. 🤷

There probably is no magic solution: I would focus on making abuse expensive instead of making honest users miserable. Gradual trust, optional vouching, sensible rate limits, reputation, and behavioral signals together will outperform almost any CAPTCHA while keeping the door open for real newcomers.

If AI can already chain together credential theft, vulnerability discovery, and exploitation with minimal human input, model capability is no longer the only race that matters. Security, containment, and responsible deployment need to advance just as quickly, or they’ll become the weakest link.

Absolutely! 💯

Are you still hoping that he’ll learn at some point?

Both Washington and Beijing now treat AI less like software and more like oil or nuclear technology. Once that happens, export controls are almost inevitable. The real question is whether open weight AI make those controls increasingly irrelevant over time.

At least in this case, they actually know what they’re talking about. ✅

Funny how AI suddenly becomes sacred intellectual property only when someone else catches up. If the evidence is real, enforce the rules. If it is not, this risks looking less like protecting innovation and more like protecting market leaders from uncomfortable competition.

This is exactly the kind of AI competition users should want: more choice, more deployment options, and less vendor lock in. If European AI companies can scale without being swallowed by US tech giants, that’s good for customers, resilience, and the AI ecosystem as a whole.

Certainly for China. The US still seems to think it can achieve anything with this nonsense.

There really is no better way to obtain data. And it’s not just data that’s fed into the AI, but also strategies, methods and processes: ideally, these are incorporated directly into the software.

It’s as if the whole world were just one big kindergarten.

💯

China is following the same playbook it criticises the US for using. Once AI became a strategic technology, »global collaboration« quickly gave way to »national advantage.« The result is a world where everyone talks about innovation while making it harder for innovation to cross borders. 🤨

The AI boom is starting to look a lot like past »economic development« promises: huge tax incentives, massive power consumption, and surprisingly few permanent local jobs. If taxpayers are footing part of the bill, it’s fair to ask whether communities are getting enough in return.

Most companies have not yet been using AI efficiently, and often do so simply out of FOMO. What’s more, the fact that open-weight models have caught up with or even overtaken closed AIs is a recent development over the last six months.

Authoritarian governments don’t need superintelligent AI. They need AI that’s just good enough to monitor more people, automate more decisions, and scale censorship at a fraction of the cost. The real danger isn’t AI becoming all powerful: It’s making authoritarianism dramatically cheaper and more efficient.

This! It’s fast. It’s reliable. Love it!

The feature itself isn’t the biggest issue. Plenty of people would find it genuinely useful. The bigger problem is executives denying it exists until they’re ready to talk about it. If users can’t trust what a company says about face recognition today, why should they trust its privacy promises tomorrow?

Exactly. Dominance is earned by building products people genuinely prefer, not by making alternatives harder to reach. Every restriction becomes an incentive for competitors to innovate faster. If the US had focused on winning through better models, stronger companies, and real competition instead of political leverage, it would probably be in an even stronger position today.