The implication, which is well understood, is that the "equity" in "private equity" exists in the form of investments in other companies by the PE business. No reasonable person would agree that ownership of one's own business counts as "private equity."
So SpaceX doesn't count at all. SoftBank, being a VC-like business aimed at speculation on new businesses rather than sacking and looting existing ones, is debatable.
It's more an issue of indifference than trust. For instance, you can show Trump supporters any number of legitimate videos that depict Trump and his associates saying, doing, and promising all kinds of outrageous, offensive, and destructive things, and they won't care in the slightest. It's not that they don't trust the video, it's that they've been programmed not to care. The leader cannot fail.
That's the ultimate purpose of disinformation -- it's not to make you believe false things, it's to make you believe nothing.
So yes, AI fakery will contribute to that phenomenon on behalf of numerous bad actors, but it was always going to happen anyway. You don't need Hinton and Sutskever on your side if you have Aisles and Murdoch.
> So yes, AI fakery will contribute to that phenomenon on behalf of numerous bad actors, but it was always going to happen anyway.
That's like saying: "Yes, crime might increase, but we will always have crime anyway." What will happen anyway is irrelevant precisely because it happens anyway. What's relevant is the expected increase in media distrust once everything might be a fake.
I was able to clone the repo and run it locally, even on a Windows machine, with only minimal Python dependency grief. Takes about a minute to create or edit an image on a 4090.
It's pretty impressive so far. Image quality isn't mind-blowing, but the multi-modal aspects are almost disturbingly powerful.
Don't see anything abrupt? Seems pretty typical ending for a common sci-fi subgenre that is still very popular today (I won't give more details to avoid spoilers). Sure, you can continue and make a whole book out of it, but it makes a good self-sufficient short story too.
Perhaps the page got truncated? For me, it ends with word "funny".
I don't believe I've reread it since its original appearance, and I refuse to do so now — for fear of discovering how little I have improved in almost four decades. Those who claim that it's their favorite story get a cooler and cooler reception over the passing years.
Do you have an interpretation of your own to offer? I merely posted the warning I would have appreciated myself.
There are a lot of better SF stories that neither you nor I will live long enough to get around to, including many written by the same author at a more-mature stage in his career. This one can safely be skipped in favor of one of those.
Not sure what to tell you. It has a satisfying ending and resolution as far as I am concerned. It's pretty plain on its face; I don't think an "interpretation" is needed.
It's obviously not the best Arthur C. Clarke story, but I don't think it's a waste of time to read it.
It's obviously not the best Arthur C. Clarke story
Exactly, and the ending is only one of several weak aspects. So why defend the story with a vague insult to another reader's acumen when they suggest, justifiably, that time spent reading it may be better spent elsewhere?
Someone unfamiliar with Clarke who reads this piece of junk may decide they don't want to waste even more time with The Nine Billion Names of God or The Sentinel or The Star, and I'm sure we agree that'd be a shame.
BS. The only reason this example is dangerous is because the manufacturer changed things for no reason -- things that were working just fine.
See also the death of Anton Yelchin, which occurred because some "UX designer" was bored with the way gearshifts had worked since his or her grandmother learned to drive: https://www.cochranfirm.com/washington-dc/star-trek-actor-ki...
reply