AFAIK all these companies have SOTA or near-SOTA models available under enterprise licenses. AI companies are not interested in your secret sauce, they are trying to capture the SDLC wholesale.

I’m not sure what you are implying by “enterprise license”, but if you think it provides any meaningful protection against malicious US government actors, you really need to read and internalize the US CLOUD Act.

On a related note, I really need to try some local models (probably starting with qwen), since, at least in 2026, the Chinese models are way better at protecting democracy and free speech than the US models.

If an American company, let's say a company that writes software for power stations, would use the services of a French or Chinese AI company under such enterprise licenses, how long would you think it would take until someone, in Congress e.g., would interfere?

What if they learned that half of the American small and medium sized companies would have started pouring all their business information into such a service?

That doesn't address the concern. Google isn't interested in violating 1st and 4th amendment rights of people who criticize the government... but they do anyway (or more correctly assist the government in doing so).

It certainly thought it did all that -- this was (presumably) not written by a human.

I'm skeptical that B is fully possible. You can create a PQ fork of bitcoin but you cannot automatically bring vulnerable wallets along - and there are a lot of vulnerable wallets, especially from the early days. There's a catastrophe ahead for bitcoin with an apparent probability of 1.0. That's hard to account for in this scheme.

I would argue that the hackers will do the jobs of transferring funds from insecure wallets to secure ones very efficiently.

It would still tank the price. Right now many Bitcoins are lost because no one holds the keys any more. When they can hack it, suddenly the sell pressure significantly goes up.

a hard fork could burn bitcoins which are vulnerable

The bitcoin white paper was released in 2008.

There was an EO, but that is not law. Cannabis is still schedule I last I checked. The order is to make it schedule III.

A president can not make a law, only sign them into existence. He can also direct enforcement or lessen it.

As far as I understand, the Schedule of Cannabis is written into the US Code. So Congress would need to amend it.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...

It's under the purview of the executive branch to determine drug scheduling

> The term "list I chemical" means a chemical specified by regulation of the Attorney General ... until otherwise specified by regulation of the Attorney General

Thank you, TIL!

People often cloak their power grabs behind a move to control some vice. It was just a bunch of us nerds on BBSs back in the day. Now everyone is online. The stakes are completely different.

I think it's more the consistency of product design than the manufacturing process. Everything around me, especially in the software world, seems to change for no good reason on a frequent basis. Companies change products all the time for reasons other than utility/functionality. A consistent specification over 50+ years is an outlier.

I, too, am able to get interviews. The last time I made a serious search was in 2022-23, and companies were clearly eager to hire at competitive rates. This past fall, they were not. My salary requirements stopped at least two interview processes when the question was raised. In other cases it was not clear that the company was serious about moving forward with hiring for the position at all. A three month search ultimately came up dry, which is fine because I'm currently employed, but I do not think the hiring landscape is promising at all right now.

There's a lot that's not being said in (2). That warrants more extensive justification, especially with the issues presented in the parent post.

They're using the harnesses provided by the respective underlying Operating Systems to do virtualization.

I'd like to explore that topic more too, but I feel like the context of "we deferred to MacOS/Windows" is highly relevant context here. I'd even argue that should be the default position and that "extensive justification" is required to NOT do that.

One person's waste is another's value. Do you have any idea how "wasteful" tik tok or any other streaming platform is? I'll grant that AI is driving unprecedented data center development but it's far from the root cause, or even a leading clause, of our climate issues. I always find it strange that this is the first response so many have to AI, when it poses other more imminent existential threats IMO.

It was a reply to what the GP said about running local generation 24/7 for no good reason, just because it's possible (and electricity is too cheap, apparently). There are many more threats, but those are beside the point in this specific context.