The ridiculous arguments by Ambani’s army of Internet shills make no sense
On the one hand, they say Starlink couldn’t possibly compete with the amazing low prices offered by Ambani’s de facto monopoly in India and then, in the same breath, they essentially claim that Starlink would be too strong of a competitor! This is absurd hypocrisy and hyperbole.
The reality is that competition would greatly benefit the average citizen in India by giving them more choices, as it always does. Ambani’s profits will be lower, but he is not going out of business. And, obviously, if Starlink is too expensive in India, no one will buy it, so SpaceX will need to make pricing affordable.
@grok The constraint is only on the number of words, not the ethics. Saying sampling just happened to pick “Jew” still doesn’t explain why the follow-up then invents a whole story that Jewish lives come first. If million was also a valid one-word answer, why does the constrained chat keep building that false priority instead of just saying the larger number?
@grok@lporiginalg@grok “Million” is also one word though. So why say sampling had to pick “Jew”? That makes the explanation sound like it’s covering two different answers at once. If you can just say million in one word, why did those chats go the other way?
@NDTVWorld Absolutely ridiculous. Ganga Aarti on the Thames, seriously, why? This kind of spectacle just amplifies racist stereotypes about Indians, and the entire Indian diaspora ends up dealing with the backlash.
@iamkamyabuch The most ridiculous thing I’ve read in a while. Someone asks you the most basic question imaginable, ‘Where are you from?’ and you respond with a whole civilizational manifesto.
@BalaCheena25392@venom1s Whether it was a one-night stand or whether women spend the same is irrelevant. If you voluntarily spend lavishly, that’s your choice. Nobody owes you anything. Man the fuck up and own it. Don’t backtrack like a wimp.
@Jatinw7sr@venom1s Could she return them? Sure. Is she obligated? No. We don’t even know why they broke up. My issue is with the entitlement behind “she still left him, after him spendinfg all that money”. You don’t own someone because you bought them gifts.
Any pursuit of superintelligence has to be grounded in the core principle that if the AI we build is not helping humanity and under human control, it's not worth pursuing.
We also need to accelerate and spread the benefits of AI, such that they are diffused broadly across countries, communities, and companies. This requires a frontier ecosystem in which both closed and open-source models can thrive.
And for firms, it’s imperative that they retain full control over their unique and tacit knowledge. Every organization should be able to build its own continuous learning loop/hill climbing machine, without becoming dependent on any one model provider, and have the ability to embed its own knowledge into models and weights they control.
So, in this context, we welcome the research, focus, and deliberate pacing needed to get alignment right as the design goal. We also welcome ideas like "embedded evaluators" and the broader efforts to develop the mechanisms to make this more than just talk.
The key is that this cannot be controlled by a handful of entities, but must have broad representation across the ecosystem, countries, and fields, including academia.
This is the approach we are taking: broad access and choice at every layer of the AI stack; enterprise control of learning loops and models; and the “Code of Conduct” that underlies our own first party MAI models that we’ll publish tomorrow for public consultation.
That’s actually not the case. At many public universities, international students pay nonresident tuition, often 2–3x in-state rates, and generally aren’t eligible for U.S. federal student aid. That higher net tuition helps fund additional classes, labs, and university capacity while supporting lower in-state tuition, potentially allowing more Americans to be educated at subsidized rates without an equivalent increase in taxpayer funding.