PumpkinSkink
It's ludicrously irresponsible to even use the language of "date" for this. This is straight up a category error. You can't "date" a chatbot.
Yeah they have rights to their IP, a share of the first 100 billion in profit they might hypothetically make one day, and provide most (all, up until jan of this year) of their cloud service. They also oppose OpenAI's bid to convert to a non-profit by year end, which a huge chunk of their funding is dependent upon. It really a strange play tbh.
Is it just me or is this shithead in full "throw spaghetti at the wall mode". This is, like, the third dumbass announcement he's made this week, which seems high, even for him.
You would be a good guesser then.
As a teacher, my first question to admin would be "so what do we do when a group of 15 year old boys get it and start flying it around the neighborhood"?
No no. You see what they'll do is make a shitty chatbot, use it to justify firing a whole bunch of workers, then hire some cheaper workers in India or Pakistan or something to do the same job, but pretend that its the shitty chatbot doing the work. At that point they'll have achieved their goal: AGI (A Guy Instead). Just like builder.ai did.
I suspect the data centers in question here are the "Stargate" project, a "joint venture" between Open AI and softbank where the liquidity for Open AI's part of the investment appears to be money from Softbank that Softbank doesn't have on hand and only intends to give OpenAI if they convert to a for profit entity by the end of the year.
oh and they intend to let a crypto company who has never built a data center build it.
I wouldn't hold my breath on those data centers being built.
Yes. Lets tie our expansion of desperately needed internet access in rural America to massively carbon emitting rocket launches. Thats definitely not gonna back fire on us.
So when I poop the carbon butter out, how long does it take to decompose? Because unless we make one of those nuclear waste containment salt bunkers for all. the butter carbon poop this kinda seems like a dumb idea.
lil soy saus? no?
If they sent the entier national guard to cities larger than 100,000 people, there would be ~1,200 troops per city. The conventional wisdom I have heard places the number of occupying troops to population required to suppress an insurgency at something like 20-25 troops per 1000 people. We're at about half that number in the smallest cities larger than 100,000 in this hypothetical scenario. By those numbers, it would take the ~~entier~~ half national guard to secure NYC.
For comparison, Britain sent ~3,000 soldiers to Boston in 1768, which, at the time, had a population of about 16,000, and that basically only succeeded in turning the whole city into a preasure cooker.
This threat is a paper tiger even if we ignore the impossibility of the logistics.