Aren't they 'wasting' time on these features exactly because the engineering requires a different, more traditional skillset from the ML work model people do, and can be done in parallel?

> Developing nations have the strongest incentive to cheat since they need those margins to catch up

This isn't really how it works, since greenhouse gas output is pretty much corellated to income level, and even that's an understatement, since people in rich countries buy stuff made in poor countries, and manufacturing causes emissions.

The real problem is carbon credits - rich countries can both pollute, and absolve themselves of moral responsibility by buying carbon credits - and said carbon credits are fungible, so countries' compete for the lowest selling price.

So what ends up happening is poor countries sell carbon credits by offering programs and promises, but can't/won't bear the cost, as that would mean they'd have to raise credit prices, and buyers would go elsewhere.

It's a system designed to encourage cheating while absolving moral responsibility.

The difference is rich nations are not cheating, they are setting the rules which are what they plan to do anyway. (though this is a form of cheating)

I did try this for syncing stuff between PCs, and have found the performance quite poor, like 10MB/s on a wired 10Gbe network. I don't know what the reason for this, but I suspect its networking layer is not really optimized.

In contrast, sftp did hundreds of MB/s

It's not artist replacement yet because they dont have the necessary training or sophistication.

I doubt the current state shows the end of their ambitions.

I think your monitor or room lighting might just be different from others'

Yeah considering we're somewhat far along the maturity curve with LLMs, and diffusion, we can kind of extrapolate where this is going, so unless there's another gamechanging breakthrough, I can't connect the dots between what we have now, and what's being described here.

I don't think the MIC is that lucrative even in the US, compared to the private sector. Consider the F35 - there have been like 1500 planes, and at $100mm a piece, the total comes out to $150B over two decades, and that's revenue, I doubt they have a huge margin on that, compared to software, where the costs are minimal.

Despite there being a war on, LM stocks have performed close to the market. Boeing has repeatedly reported that its commercial division is doing much better than its defense one, and Boeing isn't doing so hot these days.

I remember reading that Boeing's commercial division

> I remember reading that Boeing's commercial division

This sentence appears to be unfinished.

It’s lucrative to companies that see the ridiculous waste the current military industrial complex is. There can be competitors that can provide similar effectiveness for a fraction of the cost.

I don't want to judge the US armed forces, so the following is a hypothetical - I heard the rumor that some procurement guy shared the US Army paid about $10k for a set of power tools for mechanics, which were commercially available, and together cost about $1k.

Now I learned from ChatGPT that the US Army has about 100k mechanics, and assuming every one gets such a set, and the extra $9k is pure profit, then the guy making the sale gets about $900mm out of it - a staggering amount, but not commercially compared to what big companies rake in, and financially not very sophisticated.

Also I'd like to stress that the above scenario is conjecture - I have far too little knowledge of the actual specifics of the org to just make such an accusation openly.

$1k for the tools, $5k for dealing with the paperwork, $2k for having to stock 4,000 sets for years because they need to have direct replacements forever in order to make them standard issue, $500 for needing a different version for the army, navy, air force, and coast guard, and $500 profit.

I'm not sure how intelligence and killing go together. The soldiers who are getting blown up by those suicide drones with just enough intelligence to recognize targets and chase them, are infinitely more intelligent than said drones.

I'm kind of not sure how much intelligence squares into this compared to being faster (and cheaper) than your enemy.

I would even dare to explore the corollary - the people who sell the idea to the MIC that strong AI will turn their weapons into unstoppable killing machines are in fact far overselling the amount of improvement these systems can bring.

This feels like what a dog does. It's incredibly hard to train dogs by punishment, because it's very hard to tell if the dog understands what he did wrong and feels genuine remorse, or is just showing submissive signs at your display of dominance.

What? I thought Azure will always have the Sharepoint/Office/Active Directory cash cow.

Their engineers have been working tirelessly to make Sharepoint/Office/Active Directory as terrible as it possibly could be while still technically being functional, while continuing to raise prices on them. I've seen many small business start to chose Google Workspace over them, the cracks have formed and are large enough that they are no longer in a position were every business just go with Office because that's what everyone uses.

I see more businesses on the office + Team stack then Google workspace. So far more.

I think the differentiator is Team, which Google for some mysterious reason can't build or doesn't want to.

It is the one thing that makes me wonder about Microsoft's future. It had seemed like they were willing to throw Windows and Xbox under the bus so long as the server cash cow continued. But it that starts to fade, they could be in some real trouble a decade from now.

Sharepoint has never not been terrible.

Though it may be painful for much of the world to move on from Microsoft, at some point it could be more painful for them to stay with Microsoft. The inertia is huge, but inertia doesn't carry anything forever.