Its not a Microsoft thing, also I have no idea what you are agitated about, is there some sort of pop culture MCP that is terrible for it to be linked to? Searching for it the only thing other that Model context protocol I find is “make contribution payments”, “Metcalfe Copeman & Pettefar LLP Solicitors” and “MCP fixings” so whatever it is, I imagine MS are unaware of it.
Thing is, thats fine if you’re doing something like working on a version controlled codebase where you can just roll back whatever the agent does if you dont like it. The idea of using a windows computer that had an AI fucking around with system settings and registry entries gives me shivers. Thats before getting into the possibilities of hostile actors managing to prompt your AI to do something like give up sensitive information by getting it to read malicious information on a website.
Your point about poinitng (ha!) is incorrect, its pretty trivial to maintain pointing at the target. Hubble achived 7mas pointing accuracy over extended periods (thats ~0.000002degrees) with technology more than 30 years out of date. That gives you ~1.2m accuracy from geostationary orbit, which seems fine.
The real point is getting a mirror which is large enough and perfect enough into orbit is completely infeasible. As you rightly say, the maximum potential power it can provide is equal to solar insolation time its area.
Definitely a possibility! But dealing with “only being a normal profitable company” is a very different problem to “oops, we were selling $10 for $5 and VCs have stopped giving us money to burn, and people are using self hosted models too”, which is the possible outcome for the big AI labs.
I’m not a fan of them either, I wish AMD would step up and compete with them better (Just get ROCm into a good place FFS!), but they are definitely not one of the companies most exposed to an AI pop. They’ll stop being insanely profitable but they are not anywhere near the position of openAI and the likes who have massive negative profit.
From a quick look they have ~40B USD in liabilities and make ~115B USD gross profit. Being able to pay off the entirety of their debt with 4 months of profit seems pretty healthy to me.
It wont be Nvidia unless they play things incredibly badly, they’re the only ones making actual profit by selling shovels in the goldrush.
Mining raw resources that are more easily availabe on asteroids than on earth seems like the most likely candidate. There are metalic asteroids that have significant quantities of valuable metals like gold, titanium, iridium etc.
If we are, then I entirely misinterpreted them.
On re-reading it seems like thats quite possible! The first and second line seem to agree with me but the third is taking the opposite postion though so who knows.
Are we on the same website? Lemmy as a rule hates AI with a blind passion and will downvote anything that isnt frothing at the mouth hatred of it. Hence the downvotes on this post, people see it has AI in the title and isnt calling it slop or saying its cooking the planet and so it gets downvoted.
The killer feature for other AI-powered browsers has been the built-in chatbot that sits in a side panel and automatically has context for whatever’s on your screen. It may sound minor, but many users spend all day copying and pasting text or dragging files and links into ChatGPT, just to provide context. The sidecar feature removes that friction and makes for a smoother user experience.
Really sounds like exactly what you’d want be focusing on if you were the leading AI company and are on the verge of AGI just like you promised… Just think, people might save a dozen ctrl-c ctrl-v keystrokes a day!
Assuming you are just a regular person using Windows, you are not their customer, at best you’re a handy side revenue stream and data source. Their actual customers are giant enterprises who are actively trying to fire people and smaller business locked into their ecosystem by needeing to interact with other businesses (who are also locked into their ecosystem).
I’m not even sure that IP being owned by non-natural persons is the problem, for example I could see a coop collectively owning copyrights/patents relevant to their work. The problem is the frankly ridiculous amount of time granted for copyrights and obvious methods being patented.
Change both of those and you keep the benefit of innovative individuals/small groups having legal protection from large corporations muscling in and stealing their work and get rid of most of the damage done by the current system.
You do accept that bad software has been written, yes? and that some of that software is performing important functions? So how is saying “It needs to be written better in the first place” of any use at all when discussing legacy software?
The post I was replying to was saying
people will stop using it for all the things they’re currently using it for
They will when AI companies can no longer afford to eat their own costs and start charging users a non-subsidized price.
i.e. people will stop using AI when user have to pay the “real” price (what this is is left unspecified and an exercise to the reader to figure out). My point was that even if the AI price from those provided to infinity AI usage wouldnt drop to zero like they imply.
There are free open models you can go and download right now, that are better than SOTA 12-18 months ago, and that cost you less to run on a gaming PC than playing COD does. Even if openai, anthropic et al disappeared without a trace tomorrow AI wouldnt go away.
Quantum entangled communications that are impossible to evesdrop on exist now, cloud computing is the money machine that allows Amazon to keep expanding, virtualisation is used by effectively every company using computers at scale. (blockchain, I’ll admit, was pretty much all hype and vapourware other than laundering drug money and allowing speculation)
Just because there is marketing hype around a term doesnt mean there isnt anything of value there.
You are misunderstanding their point. “Good reason” doesnt mean ethically good, it means there is a sound logical connection between the action they are taking and the outcome they want to happen. In that case Microsoft does have good reason to push trusted hardware, in the same way as a bank robber has good reason to buy a face mask.
Given the judege in that case flat out rejected the claim that there was any infringement for works they had legally aquired, yes.
The number of people suggesting that the appropriate responce to an optional feature for the standard bearer foss browser is to jump to a chrome based browser and further cement google’s dominance is depressing.