I'm happy with them and would rather support those who share. Ai is taken from the history of human knowledge, so it seems fair we all get access to the fruits built on out shared knowledge.
Not sure how much I trust private benchmarks, preferences and incentives are unknown
> Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, proposing a one-time 50% stock tax on large AI companies. This would create a $7 trillion public fund, managed by an independent commission, distributing 5% of its value annually to Americans.
That makes no sense. Where will the cash come from to distribute to Americans? Assuming that for all tax / regulatory purposes you now classify Google as an AI company (which I think is a huge stretch), they are the only "large AI company" will distribute a dividend, and FWIW, their dividend yield is only 0.24%.
Anthropic and OpenAI, which I assume are the only other two "large AI companies" will not pay dividends. They will have to reinvest for a very very long time before they pay out dividends, if ever. Alphabet only started paying dividends in 2024.
Given the current US government's tightening of export control restrictions and the introduction of a bipartisan bill to block use of Chinese AI in federal agencies, I'd say the two countries' positions are not far apart.
That is ALSO happening, but that's beside the point.
Chinese AI apps like DeepSeek are freely available for ordinary Americans to download and use. There's no federal law banning private citizens from using them.
So to claim that Chinese companies are better at selling American companies' work than the American companies can do themselves when they are prohibited from operating in that market, is the wrong deduction to make.
> but I think a company seeing layoffs as an embarrassing last resort is a positive trait.
Don’t most companies think of layoffs as a last resort? I don’t think one ought to be embarrassed about correcting course when you have made a mistake. It takes courage.
How many mistakes does it take to layoff 30% of your work force in a few months (Lucid)?
Embarrassment should always be warranted when you make mistake on a scale where you are laying off a percentage of your work force instead of a couple of people.
Falling valuations spell horror for vcs. More recently launched funds have been returning markedly less money to investors than those of earlier vintages, according to the World Economic Forum. They have also underperformed the s&p 500 by a wide mark, particularly those that did not invest in a small club of artificial-intelligence superstars
The usage of the phrase has evolved past carrying about the actual generation (kind of like how people still talk about "millennials" like they're college students).
Also, Hoffman very intentionally opened the door to talking about generational differences, this kind of feels like the commenter may have touched a nerve
> kind of like how people still talk about "millennials" like they're college students
Is that really an evolution? "Millennial" was coined to refer to the cohort that gradated from high school in the year 2000. Not all high school graduates become college students, of course, but if we are generalizing it isn't unreasonable to think of recent high school graduates as college students.
Now, there was nothing in the definition to declare if you must continue to recognize them for who they are going forward (i.e. 40-somethings now), or if you are to remember them in that moment as high school graduates, many of whom were college bound. So still thinking of "millennials" as being college students is a fair interpretation before evolution.
"Ok boomer", as I understand it, basically means "I'm not going to engage seriously with that outdated perspective", often used to shut down a conversation rather than to continue it.
I don't know that what Reid is expressing is an outdated perspective, but that's of course subjective.
> You guys have the opportunity to be generation AI—where you come into the workforce saying, ‘I know this a lot better than all of you'
Yeah, it was expressly my intent to shut this kind of nonsense down. This is just a different version of "get on board right now or you'll all be left behind". Enough with the lying.
I don't think it's a different version of that at all? Presumably what he has in mind is the Internet transition. Nobody got "left behind" from the Internet, even cranky 80 year olds are often pretty familiar these days, but people like Reid Hoffman achieved "fulfilling lives and jobs" by recognizing early that it was going to be a big deal.
> Nobody got "left behind" from the Internet, even cranky 80 year olds...
This is actually false. There are plenty of 80+ year olds in care facilities and living alone that are disadvantaged by the implicit assumption that everyone has a smartphone or an email address. Unable to communicate with their bank, insurance company, care providers, etc. All down to your "inclusive progress".
Call it what it is: an extractive, inhumane power grab meant to monopolize everyone's attention.
And that was tech's Big Success Story. Everything since has been trying to re-live those glory days.
I'm old too, it isn't about that. He's desperately trying to guilt young people into glomming onto his profoundly uncool thing by playing on some ancient "digital native" trope. It's, well, some boomer type shit.
Biology is ageist. The youngest baby boomers are still in their early 60s, and not yet subject to a precipitous-decline cut-off, but the median Boomer is about 71 and probably past it [1].
Given every President since 1993—with the exception of Obama—was born in 1942 or 1946 [2], I think it’s fair to admit this whole an-eighty-year-old-is-the-same-as-a-thirty-year-old tripe has swung to an untenable extreme.
Race is a social construct. Age is not. Mixing them up is fundamentally wrong and, I’d argue, dangerous.
> Race is a social construct. Age is not. Mixing them up is fundamentally wrong and, I’d argue, dangerous.
Even worse. Our entire society, hell our biology is based on old people retiring to leave space for the young to develop themselves. When you got gerontocrats in power for too long and after them boomers, all you'll end with in 20 years is a bunch of dead boomers and gen silent, and a bunch of gen y/z that never had the opportunity to actually learn leadership skills and failing spectacularly as a result.
> Our entire society, hell our biology is based on old people retiring to leave space for the young to develop themselves
This strikes me as a spin on the lump-of-labor fallacy.
The problem with a gerontocracy is you have masses in cognitive and physical decline at the peaks of power. Absent that condition, the model isn’t fundamentally broken. (You would probably see more patricide in hereditary lines…) Old people aren’t a problem, aged people in command are.
That’s what makes the comparison to race interesting—a society that brain drains gets wealthier for everyone. If we made our immigration 65+ only, on the other hand, it would be an almost-immediate disaster.
> The problem with a gerontocracy is you have masses in cognitive and physical decline at the peaks of power.
Well... that's exactly what we have been able to observe in the US. Trump and Biden are horribly old, both have shown serious cognitive and physical decline with Trump definitely being the more serious issue (I never heard rumors about Biden crapping in a diaper, with Trump the rumors are so consistent they're practically a meme, and now we get to look at his very weird hand with no explanation why it's weird all the time). A bunch of Congresspeople died of old age in office, with the most prominent being Dianne Feinstein. The Supreme Court is even worse, with RBG being the most infamous for not stepping down and allowing Obama to nominate a successor, thus handing the post to Trump.
> Old people aren’t a problem, aged people in command are.
Both are a problem. Old people are vastly more likely to fall gravely ill at any given moment, they take longer to recover, and they take longer to learn new things (or refuse to do so outright). Aged people tend to entrench themselves in their position and fear getting replaced and losing their privileges, often thanks to toxic work ethics.
> Our entire society, hell our biology is based on old people retiring to leave space for the young to develop themselves.
No it is not. People retire, because they dont have strength to work anymore. They have no duty to give up their lives just because you want to take it from them.
> No it is not. People retire, because they dont have strength to work anymore.
That's part of the problem, we shifted from an agrarian to industrial and now service economy. Unlike the first two, in a service economy you can work until old age finally takes you.
> I'm pretty sure that I was the one that came with the idea for adding them to generic text widgets when I implemented that in KDE (originally to add spell checking in KMail, since spell checking in email clients wasn't a thing yet).
When was it that you added it to KMail?
Word '95 introduced the famous red squiggly underlines in 1995.
I believe KMail introduced spell-checking in 2004.
Reread the claim, the idea to add them to generic text widgets. I think it was around the mid 2000s when Firefox also started adding spellcheck, which is around the time I started learning how to spell things correctly.
Either you are in need of as much as compute as possible since you're building frontier AI models or you're not and you're just renting out the compute. And let's face it - Grok, if not failure, is just a toy.
reply