They're referencing Trump's constant insistence that we won or are currently winning. He never, ever admits defeat or concedes any ground, everything is a victory, nothing is a loss. Trump also famously said (paraphrasing) "We're gonna win so much, we'll be tired of winning".
Best bet is an adversarial image, which is essentially reversing what a classification algo is looking for to get out the "Most banana-looking image", for example, and then using that. It, to the AI, looks so much like the category it's designed to look like, that all the weights of everything else in the image are too low in comparison and nothing else gets recognized.
You're really playing fast and loose with your definition of war here, you change it depending on the country, but aren't clearly delineating which you're using. So let me ask a question to try to clear this up:
By the US's standard of what is considered a war, is China at war, and have they been at war in the last 10 years? If so, where and when?
Russia obviously has been at war with Ukraine, no question there.
China has been conquering territory from other nations, making it their own, always advancing (even in cases where it makes no sense whatsoever, read some articles about the Vietnamese border). If that is not war, then what is?
People keep saying this and this case from 2000 is the one instance anybody has been able to cite. Most police agencies use standardized domain-specific written exams --- the PELLETB, NTN, IOS --- that are both not general cognitive exams and have no ceiling score.
This really seems like one of those too-perfect Internet myths that just isn't ever going to die. I think the balance of evidence is that if you picked any police department in the US out at random, it would have the opposite of the incentive claimed in your comment, and no ceiling on general cognitive ability whatsoever.
Sure, you can argue that despite being allowed to, most police departments do not discriminate in that way, but the legal precedent provides credence and legitimacy to the stereotype, regardless of its truthfulness, which is what I pointed out. I don't think any real data on this would be available, though, so I think most people (you and I included) just go by vibe, so in the absence of evidence one way or the other, the stereotypes will prevail, regardless of accuracy.
No, they're pointing out the "right" way is also corrupt and the problem is deeper-rooted. It being done plainly is obviously worse, but the corruption runs deeper than just this.
Supposedly DOGE was to fight corruption. We were all going to get checks back!
Not only did they find zero cases of corruption that were referred to prosecution, they ended up costing us MORE money even than they hypothetically “saved”.
That’s before we even add in “stupid wars of choice” to the “savings” mix.
The idea that “well everything is corrupt so it doesn’t matter” really needs to be confronted, especially when it’s so easily dismantled as an argument.
(I agree though that this administration has massive corruption, and see how you were explaining the above, so I’m talking generally.)
Did you actually read the articles he made going through the finances of these companies? He definitely has a bone to pick, but his numbers don't lie. The amount of return these AIs need to give due to the amount of spend is so ridiculous that unless they really do automate most jobs, they're screwed. There's a reason these companies only post AI revenue now, not profit.
Bubble doomerism is nothing novel. As is always the case, he's right vertically and wrong horizontally. Serious people in serious publications still speculated that the internet was a fad and would be over soon as late as 2008.
OpenAI will collapse, almost certainly. Anthropic might get by if they can make it to IPO before it all comes tumbling down. Google will buy up all the datacenters in a fire sale like they did with dark fiber after the .com bubble popped and continue building out stuff like NotebookLM.
Amazon and Microsoft will still be there selling server time to model providers and doing custom enterprise solutions like always. They already host the major proprietary models and sell API access.[0]
The top open models are already good enough. At this point prompting and coordination are the big bottlenecks. It would be nice if the bubble lasts long enough for open models to match at least the latest Opus.
His problem is the focus on the bubble and not on what usually happens after. People will bandy his pieces about insisting it's all short lived and they can just wait it out. Kimi K2.5, GLM 5, and MiniMax 2.5 aren't going away.
Rare opportunity for me to actually downplay frontier AI for a change. We can do a lot better. I think the next 6 months will be a stream of releases that shall leave all the current models in the dust. Opus 4.6 will be no more relevant than 3.5 Sonnet.
If this is the case, all bubble talk will have to be re-evaluated.
Why would it need to be re-evaluated? The financials haven't changed, the end goal hasn't changed, even if the AI is better or more useful, the stuff Zitron puts out assumes AI will continue to get better until the money runs out. Unless the AI genuinely starts taking jobs en masse (and not just being used as an excuse for layoffs), they're still in the same situation.
>the stuff Zitron puts out assumes AI will continue to get better until the money runs out
This is categorically false. The big part of his "thing", from the first moment he ever started talking about AI, is the insistence that AI isn't getting better and very soon undergo a devastating collapse.
I don't think Zitron has ever claimed AI to be a fad, at this point there's a cottage industry of people misrepresenting Ed Zitron to feel better about their own precarious financial predictions
I think there's an even more obvious criticism of that first point: The ligature is two characters wide, the character isn't. That's a pretty easy tell - fira code doesn't narrow it much (I think it does slightly, but I've never really noticed, it looks two characters wide).
Time is a factor here. You need to launch each of these into space. Now, in the time it took to send those satellites up into space, how many datacenters and how many solar panels and how many GPUs could you have set up and built and had operational? If latency isn't a factor, why bother building them in the US? Build them in Iceland where they have cheap geothermal! The amount of rockets you'd need to launch to fit the same number of GPUs as a datacenter is definitely quite a few. SpaceX has done 165 flights in 2025. How many datacenters or solar farms or battery plants can you build in the time it'd take to launch 1 datacenter worth of satellites?
I'm entirely ignoring the problem of cooling in space (which is a huge problem!), and of how much it'd cost to launch the satellites.
I'm quite surprised to not see teamspeak 6 on here. From what I've seen, it has all the features discord has now, including screen sharing, video calls, channels like discord, and it's also designed for gamers. It's been mentioned in some replies, but not any top-level comments yet. Is TS6 missing some discord features? (maybe calendar events, and their bot ecosystem is a lot smaller)
This entire list is Slack alternatives, not Discord alternatives. Discord is first-and-foremost a gaming voice chat platform. Teamspeak is the OG in that space and should've been the top of this list.
reply