Profit motives tend to do bad things. Like the poison emissions caused by Grok data centers. Like the 2000 missiles launched with it too - remember those?
Why do you want the Trump administration to help Elon Musk make more profit all of a sudden?
Why are you painting that as a good thing?
deleted by creator
Neat. The government gets a 50% stake in only the Grok part of SpaceX, not the profitable parts of it… And then the government has an incentive to help Grok profit.
This is bad because it seems like
The page says it’s a one-time tax… so which AI companies have that?
I would like to know how much would actually be in that fun right away rather than what it could maybe be. Valuations are skewed. We know this. Just look at WeWork.
The “tax” is the ownership of those stocks…
This is so bizarre because with other funds, they’re done for proven profitable things. Oil in Alaska. We could have gone after all tech company stock, but Bernie Sanders only went for the unproven, unprofitable thing.
A 50% government ownership in only the AI portion of company shares, you mean?
Wouldn’t the Trump administration then have an interest in making the share value go up for those companies?
Is it normal to exclude the profitable part of the company?
I am very worried about this because AI lobbyists have done a great job of pushing politicians around. Bernie Sanders himself has accepted Eli Yudkowski, an AI doom cult leader, as a reputable source.
He’s calling for a group under the current US president to have 50% of the stock of the AI companies… And only the AI (read: no-path-to-profit) part of those companies.
I’m not an economic genius, but this doesn’t seem like a great idea.
At current valuations, the sovereign wealth fund that would be created under this legislation would be worth an estimated $7 trillion.
Are these companies really worth what their valuations claim to be?
The Independent Commission would use voting shares in these companies to block decisions that hurt the American people and to push for policies that help them.
Wait, who’s purchasing the shares in these companies?
it would require large companies that operate both AI and non-AI businesses to break up those businesses, ensuring the public receives an ownership stake in the AI business.
Separate the profitable part and let the oligarchs keep that for themselves??
ETA: Bernie Sanders has been mislead by an actual AI doom cult leader, so the AI-is-inevitable lobby’s foot is already in the door with him.
$500 - $150 = $350
I realize they’re not exactly the same phone, but still, does it make sense that it would cost 233% more
I legitimately don’t know, but I’m sure the ability to run one OS over another OS doesn’t come for free.
Do a fresh install of Firefox sometime and keep track of all the places Mozilla shoves AI into your face. The notifications, the sidebar, and coming soon: even the window type. Begging to use AI to group your tabs. Begging to summarize the article you just found that was actually written by a person.
You’d figure Chrome would be the worst offender here, but they own the Google search engine, and that’s mostly enough for them. A fresh Firefox install comes across as maximalist as Microsoft Edge these days.
Then I mentioned the Uniphone S22
Is the camera $350 worse?
Unless there’s a tremendous performance bump for the price, it seems more and more like this just isn’t worth it. And I’m not sure if people want the performance bump anyway…
I swear you have to tap the shift key maybe six times if you use the word “I” in the middle of a sentence. If I use that phone seriously, maybe muscle memory would kick in, but it’s just so unintuitive.
It’s unfortunate because I swear you can design a feature phone well. There just isn’t a lot of thought put into it now that Android can (or at least could) mostly overshadow that marke.
Probably because the scientists FauxLiving’s taking about are paid by the capitalists to make the problem-causing machines. The only way for them to continue working is to not address their employers.
And for the scientists trying to make the pure wholesome science AI, every advance (like cancer cell spotting) is overshadowed by a bigger issue like de-skilling the people who have to do the training, or worse (like an LLM rejecting people’s insurance and a chance to even see that deskilled doctor)
The problem is a bit circular. Mozilla is flippant with money because they get it from Google and they act like it will be eternal. Assuming an absolute worst case scenario: just based on 2024 finances, Mozilla has enough money to keep running for about three years with no funding if expenses remain stable (123/41=3).
It’s worth noting that Servo and competing engine Ladybird are still in development, and they do not get Mozilla money…
We can figure out how to correctly use the hammer after we convince CEOs to stop bashing everyone’s feet with them. Until then, the foot bashers make it a moot point.
“The income part isn’t trivial, unless they find some alternative source of funding”
Addressed within the article by the insider:
For what it’s worth, I’m not concerned for Mozilla isn’t it running out of money. So long as Google or another large search engine exists, it can get cash. There are also a few other financial stability angles it can do which (frankly) would be better.
Google can easily afford to fund Mozilla, and it can’t afford to stop. They still need to act like they aren’t a monopoly.
Only if the T9 software is good though. KaiOS, a Mozilla initiated project to get web apps on T9 capable phones, absolutely failed with simple things like capitalizing the word “I” for example.
I didn’t realize how unintuitive dumb phones could be until I was trying to explain different functions that were triggered by different arrow keys on a KaiOS phone to an elderly person
“Up to” is doing some heavy lifting there. Who the heck told Bernie there’s $14 trillion of AI stocks to take?
https://isaiprofitable.com/