>As ever, if you want to know where much of the expertise has gone, look to China (and South Korea)
Good news!
You don't need to worry about that anymore! I can guarantee you, as the article implies, money from big tech is being funneled to people perfecting models for in-betweeners as we speak.
/s
I think we may be entering an era where we really have to start thinking about how to organize work at a fundamental level. Because if you think the present where the "1%" refers to the group of people to whom the lion's share of resources in society accrue is bad; imagine a future where the "1%" refers to a group that are the only people any given government and steward class need to keep everything running.
All it takes is a populist with a good message to make a political group. All functional Western nations have voting mechanisms that allow for radical government change, if there is enough public support for it. It might take a decade to fully manifest, but if we're entering an age of such extreme, then I would expect people to eventually vote for such change.
Having the mechanism does not equal guaranteeing the positive result that this mechanism theoretically allows.
Politicians' whole schtick is to promise the sun and the moon and then give their buddies the lucrative government contracts, do insider trading, and generally create hidden rings of influence.
Voting and democracy in general are a facade and have been probably ever since they first existed. Not seeing that seems... a strange form of idealism, to me.
The RNC tried to stop Trump from winning the candidacy but he won regardless. The fact that MAGA movement is seemingly enthralled to him means at least some people are getting who they voted for, and therefore your statement can't possibly be true.
>The RNC tried to stop Trump from winning the candidacy but he won regardless.
That's not an example of people getting what they voted for though.
It's RNC trying to prevent people prevented get the alternative to what they decidedly didn't what. RNC just wanted the same old politics and career players (that people didn't want), and tried to prevent Trump for that reason (same as Dems did to Bernie).
Not that Trump wining changed anything. After he won, he negated on his promises, and just gave same old neoliberal/neocon RNC shit combined with some theatrics for the gullible.
So people prevented from electing who they wanted, and when they finally elected him anyways, they got the same shit they voted him as the alternative to.
Why do you think globalization is even possible to reverse via human thought?
If you accept global competition, then expecting there to be hundreds of millions of job positions with meaningful protection from competition seems literally futile.
Even tens of millions would be a huge stretch. So probably not even a full 1% of 8+ billion people could attain that.
A lot of "us" thought quite thoroughly and, you might say, even correctly, about "how to organize work at a fundamental level".
News flash: the truly influential people that hold most of the capital on the planet don't want those ways of organizing work at a fundamental level. They want serfs and -- if possible -- slaves.
Get to work enacting a change. Most of us are busy surviving and feeding families. You know where the "1%"-ers are. Let's see some results -- on the news.
I am seriously super tired of seeing this "we" trope. As if there's a true democratic way of changing things out there. When was the last time the worker class has been truly listened to? Point me at some real history.
At least in the US, it's questionable as to whether "people" (writ large) really want change deep down inside.
As Kurt Vonnegut wrote:
"America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, 'It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be.' It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: 'if you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?' There will also be an American flag no larger than a child’s hand – glued to a lollipop stick and flying from the cash register.
Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times. Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves."
This quote helped me explain why and how average working-class and poor Americans vote for people who think of them as subhuman.
But I would add that at this point I'm not sure this is really "propaganda". In my mind, it's more "the culture."
America is a highly individualistic society and always has been. By some measurements, it's the most individualistic society in the world and perhaps the most individualistic nation-state in history.
If you're American, you're basically taught from an early age that anything is possible and that the sky is the limit. You could be born poor and still become one of the world's richest people. Technically, some of these beliefs are true. But they're exaggerated and the end result is that you have a ton of people who devalue things (like, say, universal healthcare) that they come to see as a threat to the lottery ticket they were born with.
To put it in blunt terms, this is how you end up with a poor redneck in West Virginia voting for a foul-mouthed socialite billionaire from New York City. The latter thinks the former is trash; the former thinks under the right circumstances he could have become the latter.
Unironically, ever since generative art tech arrived I have been anticipating full automation of in-betweening. I am rather (pleasantly) surprised it hasn't already been done.
Full automation of in-betweening was achieved during the 70's, I was there, it was a big deal, and then nobody used it. Interpolation animation, splines and vector morphing are all versions of that tech. The automation is in-betweens is how modern animation software works, but a lot people want 3D characters, 3D views, and the freedom to change perspectives after beginning. So "in-betweening" is now used more for the creation of certain motions that either cannot be motion captured, or are some signature motion for that character and the motion is designed - and that will be in-betweens for the motions between key poses, but those are all 3D motions, so different views can be chosen later. Even if the final production will appear to be 2D hand drawn, it is 3D production beneath, and our original in-betweening method at the individual joint level within an articulated body.
>they just use platforms like aws bedrock, there are too many restrictions on Anthropic's own platform
This is actually the only way that what Anthropic is alleging would make any kind of sense. And, as a matter of fact, is exactly what every enterprise does to train models.
This kerfuffle should be interesting to watch.
But, as always, everyone (in the US) should fully download all the Chinese models while you can. I suspect this may be the "Phantom Menace" they use to render illegal our use of Chinese AI tech just as they've rendered illegal our use of Chinese cars. Only difference is, we peasants may need the Chinese AI tech to have any chance of competing with Big Tech in the future.
And even with the Chinese tech, as Big Tech spreads their AI out into more and more niche areas, we'll likely still not be able to build startups that can compete with them.
It's just that without Chinese AI tech, we'll have no chance at all.
> And even with the Chinese tech, as Big Tech spreads their AI out into more and more niche areas, we'll likely still not be able to build startups that can compete with them.
You mean like Anthropic will eventually run Walmart? Or Salesforce? or Adobe? Or do you think midjourney will replace all medical spas? OpenAI will run the next Tesla? How can they focus on all this without raising trillions more? Why wont the gov force them to stop if they monopolize all niches even if they could?
Building a frontier AI lab and pushing models forward is already a massive undertaking but we are assuming they will also create massively successful startups which nobody can compete with?
idk sounds like the dream of people like Dario but not much sense does it make in the face of economic reality.
Not sure you can “unplug” from things that affect you that you cannot control? Sooner or later you’ll have to deal with that issue. I do think you can “unplug” from things that do not affect you that you cannot control.
For instance, if you’re an immigrant, and ICE is rounding up immigrants in your neighborhood, you can go ahead and mentally “unplug” as you like. But you’re going to have to deal with the reality of your situation when you get to the immigration detainment facility. And if you’re actively dealing with that reality, are you really “unplugged”?
At the same time, whether or not Trump turns the white house into a cage match spectacle for his birthday, I mean, it won’t really affect most people. So I would think that’s a lot easier to “unplug” from since it’s not affecting you.
You unplug yourself from media and social media. And maybe open the news paper of your town if you want to spice up your life. The rest you will probably hear all about it anyway from families or colleagues if it’s something big. We are in the era of over connections. We need to know how to unplug. It doesn’t have to be as extreme as u said but if someone is as much as affected like this, this person definitely needs a huge break.
For ICE it’s kinda a big stretch can we agree? And in this case the person does have control. This person does have agency over the issue and should regularize their situation as soon as possible.
>also, i stepped over a homeless guy on my way into the grocery store last week.
This.
The evidence that it's possible is all around us. Right in our faces. That people believe that, somehow, other people will start caring when it's me who doesn't have water is a bit naive. Why would people not just step over a hypothetical "homeless me" on their way to get a Starbuck's?
It's even easier to ignore if the vast majority of such people are not on the streets, but safely hidden away in crappy parts of town struggling to afford their rent and food. That way the privileged don't have to see them.
Not saying it's good or right, just kind of saying, I mean, of course it's possible. It's the way things work right now.
If the poster didn't notice it works like this, chances are, they were always one of the people in the caravan who had the water.
Not to be a jerk or anything, but that only matters for the guys and gals left holding the bag.
I don't think that will be Musk. He'll probably pull out significant resource from all this financial engineering relatively quickly. Probably via more financial engineering.
In fairness, there are a lot of Japanese people who feel they were not consulted on the scale and scope of "Japanese peoples' expectations". So many such people that they could get a Prime Minister elected. I wouldn't assume that living according to the laws that exist currently means that you're living in accordance with "Japanese peoples' expectations". That's the whole reason the laws are being changed at the moment.
That said, as a foreigner right now the best thing to do is to watch the legal environment as it shifts so that you don't fall afoul of it. And to be extra mindful of adhering to Japanese customs, which boils down to being nice along with things like realizing some places may not look on your tattoos the same way those tattoos are looked on in the West.
I'm pretty sure they didn't think this through in a comprehensive fashion.
Because making it esy to find all the rich people just seems like a very bad idea given the direction things are going.
When it was broad, the only thing you could do was locate, say, large minority groups. Blacks and latinos for instance. And even that led to problems. I can't imagine what will happen when we can drill down and tease out immigrants from citizens. Gay from straight. Rich from well to do. And so on.
Do you really need the census to find people of specific demographics in 2026? Pretty sure I can go up to anyone in any state and ask where all the Puerto Ricans live and get an answer (in many cases I'm sure I'll get stared at like I'm crazy, but that's still an answer). I know because my parents moved to predominantly Hispanic parts of Florida before fully settling down where we landed, I REALLY doubt they stopped to pull up census data to decide where to find Hispanics / Puerto Ricans in Florida. You can talk to any local of any area and figure out which areas are a specific nationality without census data.
Well, SpaceX is supposed to be more about AI than low cost orbital launches. At least that’s what their roadshow is claiming.
But either way, yeah, I’m not willing to bet much money on USD4.3T unless we can get some serious financial engineering, (read “circular deals”), going.
We've seen through Tesla that software, government regulation, and to a smaller degree build quality are the only moats against China that still currently hold.
I've owned older USA made cars so a little panel alignment doesn't bug me. I like the lack of beer bottles stashed in the doors, missing screws, welds from the obviously inebriated, etc.
>A sturdy stick makes a decent enough baseball bat
Right around the 80’s and 90’s the idea of zero-tolerance youth crime policies swept the US. Right around the same time the popularity of baseball began a decline in the US. It went from being a universally played ‘pickup culture’ sport, to a sparsely played ‘pay to play’ sport.
Now I’m not gonna say the need for 8 or 9 boys to roam around a neighborhood with a giant stick looking for a place to play was the reason the ‘pickup culture’ games died. But I will say that it was probably a lot safer for those boys to just go to a basketball court and wait their turn in a ‘pickup culture’ game that did not require a giant stick or bat.
The only solution in that case is to make it illegal to sell the data. And that's never gonna happen in the US.
reply