In other words, media as a “service” makes more money than media as a one-point sale. Why should they sell you a one-point solution when the service model makes more money for the shareholders? I love the shareholder economy; it makes all our lives better and makes us focus on what really matters at the end of the day, which is, of course, profits for people who already have too much money. :) very cool
Again, none of the people at this talk have anything to do with selling a product or pushing an agenda or whatever you think. There is no press, there is no marketing, there is no product - it was basically a meetup of private equity firms that discussed the implementation and impact of purpose-trained AI in diverse fields, which affects the business structure of the big single-family office behemoths, like an industry summit for the private equity sector regarding the future of AI and how some plan to implement it (mainly big non-public SFOs).
Sometimes people just meet to discuss strategy; no one at these talks is interested in selling you anything or buying anything - they are essentially top management and/or members of large single-family offices and other private equity firms. They are not interested in selling or marketing something to the public; they are not public companies.
It’s weird how you guys react; not everything is a conspiracy or a marketing thing. It’s pretty normal in private equity to have these closed talks about global phenomena and how to deal with it.
These talks are more to keep the industry informed. I get that you do not like it when essentially the big SFOs have a meeting where they discuss their future plans on a certain topic, but it’s pretty normal that the elite will arrange themselves to coordinate some investments. It’s essentially just the offices of the big billionaire families coming together to put heads together to discuss a topic that might influence their business structure. But, in no way is it a marketing strategy; it would, on the contrary, be negatively viewed in the public eye that big finance is already coordinating to implement AI into their strategy.
But feelings don’t change facts. My point is if the actual non public big players are looking at AI in a serious matter, then so should you.
Haha, lol, whats happening why do you hate me, just sharing an experience, an opinion?
I have already said too much - just let me tell you if you think LLMs are the pinnacle of AI, you are very mistaken, and depending on your position in the market, you need to take AI into account. You can only dismiss AI if you have a position/job with no real responsibility.
So weird how you guys think everything is to sell you something or a conspiracy - this was a closed talk to discuss how the leaders in certain industries will adapt to the coming changes. They give zero cares about the B2C market, aka you as an individual.
Again, none of the people at this talk have anything to do with selling a product or pushing an agenda or whatever you think. There is no press, there is no marketing - it was basically a meetup of private equity firms that discussed the implementation and impact of purpose-trained AI in diverse fields, which affects the business structure of the big single-family office behemoths.
Hi, I don’t want to say too much, but after being invited to some closed AI talks by one of the biggest chip machine manufacturers (if you know the name, you know they don’t mess around), I can tell you AI is, in certain regards, a very powerful tool that will shape some, if not all, industries by proxy. They described it as the “internet” in the way that it will take influence on everybody’s life sooner or later, and you can either keep your finger on the pulse or get left behind. But they distinguished between the “AI” that’s floating around in the public sector vs. actual purpose-trained AI that’s not meant for public usage. Sidenote: They are also convinced the average user of a LLM is using it the “wrong” way. LLMs are only a starting point.
Also, it’s concerning; I’m pretty sure the big boys have already taken over the AI market, so I do not trust that it will be to the benefit of all of us and not only for a select group (of shareholders) that will reap the benefits.
Nope, it’s not possible. The only way it wouldn’t be treason is if all states agree, or if they start a revolution and are successful; every other attempt would simply be treason. Hence, one nation indivisible. I’m sure they know that; they just want to push as far as they can to make the political situation even more absurd in America. They want to widen the gap between the people. I don’t know who exactly profits from this situation, but it’s not the American people.
Here’s a video that explains it quite well: [Legal Egal] (https://youtu.be/1dhvry6E0jA?si=H62qIoiHzaLdJHQF)
Yeah, I know that, XD but why?
What makes it so that you think you should be able to get creators and their content, server capacity, and storage for free? Who should be paying for it in your mind? Who should eat the cost? The creators, the platform, or the user? or all of them to a degree? And who should be able to profit?
I think it’s pretty clear that the end-user will carry most of the cost in the end.
YouTube cannot do that. YouTube’s content legal system does not allow this.
That said, I use SponsorBlock and love it to the degree of finding it necessary depending on what type of content I am watching.
Why do people hate YouTube Premium anyway? I don’t quite get it. I have had it since it was available in my country, and I love it.
Also, I have to say I use the YouTube Vanced app with SponsorBlock and custom layout (no shorts, no uploads, no etc.) and YouTube Premium subscription. I don’t like the default YouTube app.
So, I don’t know if I like YouTube or just the model and content/creators behind it.
Why do you care this much about online comments in such a niche community where only already opinionated people are?
Yeah, if I were a moderator and needed to go over 1000 comments in today’s climate, I would delete more than necessary just because you never know. They do not put as much thought into it as you think. It was most likely just like this:
A mod goes over comments that got reported, reads the first line of the comment, sees it has direct insulting language (the “fuck them” line), and deletes it.
No political intent or conspiracy, just a mod being a mod. Could be that there is some bias, but then you can do nothing anyway in that case; it’s just a small echo chamber then.
Hakuna Matata, my friend.
What issue? That unpaid interns or those one step below are not agreeing with long-term political decisions that were practically made before they were born and only understand the surface of the subject?
Yeah, thanks. I think I’ll just ignore those as well if I were in a position of power, and you would too.
What is this “moral responsibility,” and why is it just now relevant? There were, are, and will be much bigger and worse issues, like climate change, but no one is talking about moral responsibility and blasting the ones who are in charge like it is happening right now with the Israel/Palestine crisis.
Maybe it is just the age of massive misinformation and propaganda campaigns from all sides (some are engaging much more than others) with which I have a problem. Because, in the end, I applaud people who stand up for what they think is right, like those interns. It just comes across as too selective to be a principle. I mean, the Israel/Palestine issue has been ongoing for what? 50 years? It’s not even the first hot phase or siege of Gaza. And then you start working in politics and then you became aware of the politics and stopped working there? What?
Please, you are so right - but please do not engage further with this kind of posts in the future, just report them - the OP of this post is 1 day old, most likely a bot account - Lemmy needs better moderation, and that fast, it’s getting worse and worse, day by day.
I know of one person in my wider circle who reacts also pretty bad when children are being children around him. In his childhood, every time he was loud, wanted attention, or just did what a child does, his parents (they did not even want children; he was an “accident”) got really angry at him. So children being children is a trigger for him.
Talking to a trained professional helped him immensely to handle this.
I get your point and understand where you’re coming from. I think you’re right from a certain perspective.
But I want to add that it doesn’t matter that they declared they want to stop shipping to Israel; if the entire trade route is affected, it’s just terrorism, plain and simple. Securing vital trade routes and sending a clear signal that this conflict won’t spiral is crucial for stability.
Also, this is an international issue (trade route security), not purely an American one. While the U.S. could handle it easily by themselves, it would lead to more significant problems and conflicts in the long run.
I just believe inclusivity is always better than exclusivity.
Interesting perspective, but these attacks were different from what they did before. I can see the argument that the Israeli government downplayed their preparedness to make Hamas’s attack more devastating than if they had taken it seriously from the beginning. This tactic could then be used to partially legitimize retaliation and the subsequent siege of Gaza.
There are too many factors at play for this to be a “normal” Hamas attack gone wrong. The scale and preplanned targets suggest it was not an “ordinary” Hamas operation.
While I usually agree that the simplest solution is often the right one, do you really believe this was more or less a “normal” attack that spiraled out of control?
Apologies for the misunderstandin of your statement. My bad.
Why do you think China, one of the main trading partners with the West, should not be expected to participate in securing a primary trading route, especially after expressing a desire to play a more proactive role in securing the Middle East?
Certainly, the recent surge in attacks stems from the Israel/Palestine conflict. While one could argue that we all bear some responsibility for reaching this point, the attacks on trading routes are carried out by a third party financially backed by another entity, mainly Iran. These attacks, though related to the conflict, involve non-direct participants, including the ships they target. This categorizes them plainly as terror attacks on a trading route, and there’s no need to let it escalate or reach a point where other uninvolved groups might be tempted to join in.
I agree; China’s best move for now would be to sit and wait, maintaining distance. It gives them more breathing room. China, especially the CCP, has its interests in mind and isn’t particularly interested in helping causes that don’t further their goals. More “chaos” in the Middle East is something CCP leaders would likely appreciate.
You meant it intensified; they existed and attacked the shipping route before this conflict escalated.
Also, many people forget the modern West uses retaliation as a tool against terrorism. Basically, if you mess with civilians, you’ll face swift and harsh consequences. The attack legitimized a retaliatory response.
That’s why it was confusing when Hamas initiated this phase with a terror attack, as Israel would invoke the retaliation card, supported by the USA. Humanitarian concerns become secondary to the objective of neutralizing or controlling Hamas. Crying for more humanity or boycotts won’t significantly change the priority list.
The best outcome Hamas could have hoped for with the attack that started this is what’s happening now: chaos, more hate, conflict, and the end of normalizing relations between the USA and some Middle Eastern states. They knew Israel would use the “9/11 card,” and the USA would allow and support it.
Just to be clear, I neither support any form of “genocide” nor take sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict. It’s odd to categorize so broadly and inclusively.
If you believe China’s reluctance to participate in these maneuvers is due to the genocide allegations, then it’s improbable, considering China isn’t known for opposing genocide, (especially against Muslim groups). Practically, what Israel is accused of aligns with China’s agenda – acquiring land, eliminating cultures, religions, and populations based on ethnicity. Just because China is more discreet doesn’t make it morally superior.
Example here: Uyghur genocide.
Yes, it is not feasible; it costs more to extract it from the air than the benefit obtained from burning it, and then it still needs to be stored for at least a few hundred years in solid or gas form. Otherwise, it goes right back into the atmosphere and the effect will be null. We looked at a similar concept at my university, and the professor said, I quote, “Whoever comes up with these bullshit solutions does not really understand how climate change or physics works; it is not a solution to our problem.” We also had a project like this in my city where they captured it just to sell it to a greenhouse, which releases it back into the atmosphere, so the concentration stays the same and, de facto, they have removed zero carbon from the air because it basically goes right back into the atmosphere. Actual solutions exist, but they are expensive and extensive; people will start implementing them in, let’s say, 70-120 years from now, right around when we start feeling the full effects of rapid human-induced climate change.
Yeah, sure. Have you ever heard of ‘reactions to actions’? What do you think would happen if Russia were to start targeting foreign satellites? How confident are you that they actually possess the technology to disable around 2000 out of the 4000 Starlink satellites to clear paths above Russia/Ukraine? Or, what do you think Russia is capable of in this regard? and did you really belive musk does this for free and with no ulterior idea? 😂😂😂, but there’s no such thing as free. Here’s just one example: Link to CNBC article on Pentagon awarding SpaceX a Ukraine contract for Starlink satellite internet https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/01/pentagon-awards-spacex-with-ukraine-contract-for-starlink-satellite-internet.html
I never argued that I was in IT/Tech; I deal with investments and PE. I have nothing to do with IT or tech. My point is we, in the PE/FO sector, are going to invest in AI businesses in 24/25, not only in the “B2C market” but mainly in the B2B market and for internal applications. Whether you believe it or not, it’s gonna happen anyway.