Possibly, but that assumes continuity. New math and algorithmic breakthroughs could make much of today’s AI stack legacy, reshuffling both costs and winners.
Understandable, unfortunately I haven't found a better method than BYOK for a free app. If you'd like to try it, you can generate a new key, test it for 10 minutes, and then delete it. Alternatively, you can watch a video of the generation process: https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1qsuu58/ex...
What's striking is the sheer scale of Epstein's and Maxwell's scheduling and access. The source material makes it hard to even imagine how two people could sustain that many meetings/parties/dinners/victims, across so many places, with such high-profile figures. And, how those figures consistently found the time to meet them.
> It’s kind of crazy that they have been slow to create real products and competitive large scale models from their research.
It’s not that crazy. Sometimes the rational move is to wait for a market to fully materialize before going after it. This isn’t a Xerox PARC situation, nor really the innovator’s dilemma, it’s about timing: turning research into profits when market conditions finally make it viable. Even mammoths like Google are limited in their ability to create entirely new markets.
This take makes even more sense when you consider the costs of making a move to create the market. The organizational energy and its necessary loss in focus and resources limits their ability to experiment. Arguably the best strategy for Google: (1) build foundational depth in research and infrastructure that would be impossible for competition to quickly replicate (2) wait for the market to present a clear new opportunity for you (3) capture it decisively by focusing and exploiting every foundational advantage Google was able to build.
I would add strong and fast consumer protection biased to big companies. Also, the elephant in the room: a modern, and not impossble expensive, legal system.
It seems like Epstein was connected to a lot of people around the world but not only on "layer 1" but many power layers. The Epstein case is an unique story with a lot of ramifications.
Love the last line, what Valve has done on Windows emulation is herculean, I don't know (it would be great to know) other businesses creating/investing in incredible and risky third-party compatible technologies to run their real business on top of it.
I worked in what other calls "Adversarial Interoperability" [1] but the scale of Valve is on another level.
On the hand at one point the emulation layer becomes the target. Hopefully game developers will realise this and start using native Linux technologies before they are tied to a single companies abstraction layer. Again.
When it was created DirectX was a really useful thing for game makers. It made it easier to write hardware accelerated applications that were also consumer friendly. Contemporary Windows is full of anti-patterns. MSFT just can't seem to resist sticking things into it that make it less pleasant to use in support of MSFT's ecosystem. It's no wonder Valve invests into trying to be independent of that.
Automatic payments for AI seems like a completely dangerous wormhole for hacks. In the line of smart contracts security but with the indetermination of AI.
reply