I agree that that would be a real danger, yes.

The key detail is that, like with rear brake lights, they extinguish when the foot is removed from the brake pedal. So it’s not so much the presence of the brake light, but the presence of an inactive brake light that would, serve as a warning that a car is about to start moving. This would be very helpful to drivers on a road when other drivers are pulling out too early from a side road or driveway. That little bit of extra warning is, in many situations, enough for you to pump the brakes, hit the horn, or both.

Airsonic or Navidrome server, plus one of the various Subsonic apps. I like Substreamer or Dsub but there are plenty of other options.

TD Cowen (which is basically the US arm of one of the largest Canadian investment banks) did an extensive report on the state of AI investment. What they found was that despite all their big claims about the future of AI, Microsoft were quietly allowing letters of intent for billions of dollars worth of new compute capacity to expire. Basically, scrapping future plans for expansion, but in a way that’s not showy and doesn’t require any kind of big announcement. The equivalent of promising to be at the party and then just not showing up. Not long after this reporting came out, it got confirmed by Microsoft, and not long after it came out that Amazon was doing the same thing.

Ed Zitron has a really good write up on it; https://www.wheresyoured.at/power-cut/

Amazon isn’t the big surprise, they’ve always been the most cautious of the big players on the whole AI thing. Microsoft on the other hand are very much trying to play things both ways. They know AI is fucked, which is why they’re scaling back, but they’ve also invested a lot of money into their OpenAI partnership so now they have to justify that expenditure which means convincing investors that consumers absolutely love their AI products and are desparate for more.

As always, follow the money. Stuff like the three mile island thing is mostly just applying for permits and so on at this point. Relatively small investments. As soon as it comes to big money hitting the table, they’re pulling back. That’s how you know how they really feel.

Using self-hosting services enables me to accomplish tasks more quickly.

As opposed to what? Using a cloud SaaS alternative, or not having that service at all?

People who influence my behavior think that I should use cloud services.

This question is going to get bad data. No one likes to think of themselves as being influenced. A more effective phrasing would be “…people I trust…”

Remember, this is all about OpenAI convincing investors to shovel more money into their furnace.

They are not profitable. They have no realistic path to being profitable. Their only hope for survival is to South Seas Company their through round after round of investor funding. And to do that they have to create the appearance of near unlimited demand for their services, and therefore for additional capacity to run those services.

The writing is on the wall. Microsoft and Amazon, two of the biggest players in the compute space, both of which also run their own AI projects, have both massively scaled back their plans for future compute expansion. If anyone should be building out like crazy it’s them. If anyone has a clear idea of what the actual demand is, it’s them. If Amazon and Microsoft are out, this thing is fucked.

OpenAI is fucked. Sam Altman knows it. But if he can keep the illusion going, the money train doesn’t have to stop. Yet.

Audiobookshelf for audiobooks, calibre-web for ebooks. Don’t try to get it to get one thing that does both well, you’re better off with two solutions that are both better at their respective thing.

So, from what I’ve read, and you’re welcome to correct me if I’m wrong on any of the facts here, your DAO operates using a governance token that can be traded on crypto markets.

If that’s the case, those are just grey-market voting shares. All you’ve done is create a corporation and sell shares, while avoiding all of the legal protections that would be afforded to your shareholders if you actually went through the process of creating a corporation and holding an IPO.

So, based on those facts as I understand them, I guess I’d say I have two problems.

1. Voting power decided by buying power is about the most undemocratic system possible short of autocracy.
2. Obfuscating the purpose and structure of your organization to either intentionally or unwittingly dodge regulations that would protect your shareholders is not a great look.

I’m a little confused on this point. I took a look at their whitepaper and it says that they’re not using blockchain at all. It’s some sort of proprietary (edit: apparently open source) peer to peer algorithm. Is this something that changed in implementation? I’m not really familiar with this project so I’m certainly not trying to defend anything, just unclear as to why people are calling it a blockchain project specifically.

Edit: OK, after some more digging I see what people are talking about. The project itself isn’t blockchain based, but it’s run by a DAO that operates using a governance token, which is not exactly great.

That’s not what’s happening here. Microsoft management are well aware that AI isn’t making them any money, but the company made a multi billion dollar bet on the idea that it would, and now they have to convince shareholders that they didn’t epicly fuck up. Shoving AI into stuff like notepad is basically about artificially inflating “consumer uptake” numbers that they can then show to credulous investors to suggest that any day now this whole thing is going to explode into an absolute tidal wave of growth, so you’d better buy more stock right now, better not miss out.

I write technical documentation and training materials as part of my job, and the state of most open source documentation makes me want to stab people with an ice pick.