Why are old stories that were not even covered up all that well become sudden international and geopolitical news?
The timing is suspicious, so worth asking: who benefits and why now?
If Jensen, the premier champion of open models, is taken out then anyone who wants AI closed, centralized, and controlled might benefit.
Why now? The midterms seem relevant. But also perhaps the upcoming IPOs.
In 1937, San Francisco finished the Golden Gate Bridge, initially derided as "the bridge that couldn't be built," ahead of schedule and under budget.
Nearly a century later, the same city couldn't build a single public toilet without exorbidant costs and years of delay.
Across America, communities face the same dysfunction: stalled factories, delayed energy projects, and crumbling infrastructure. We should be building faster and more safely than ever before. Instead, we struggle to deliver the basics.
The problem: our system rewards process over results. A growing bipartisan consensus offers a chance to change that.
a16z's Matt Cronin on the 5 priorities bipartisan legislation must address to get America building again: https://t.co/QZdGAdwEsL
@bscholl How about not aiding this regime 50 years ago, or not cutting a deal with it a decade ago that allowed it to grow to harass all our allies in the region at once.
This @NYTimes piece is a must read for anyone associated with AI. Corporate customers. Analysts. Most importantly - regulators of AI. Critical to understand the "why."
What really popped for me was a young high school student that was a "Y2K worrier." Quite defining.