You know, I used to worry about China taking over the world, but honestly they look like a much better choice for a super power than the US is now.
I for one welcome our new communist overlords.
Yeah, come to China
Not long until those articles are written about the USA.
We’re already there
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rfk-jr-says-ll-send-194829708.html
Fuck, they want to ban amphetamine-based prescription meds like in shitty authoritarian countries.
P.S. There were more approved drugs in US than in any other country, including Adderall. Also, there are many drugs for multiple sclerosis treatment and they are actively developed in US to be even better. It saves the whole world, I mean, it improves people’s lives significantly (however, these medicines are very expensive).
P.S. #2 A few years ago there was Wellbutrin (depression, ADHD, narcolepsy treatment. Innovative new drug) in Russia, and it was registered there officially by pharmacy company GfK, it’s manufacturer. Then they shut down production and it stopped being supplied to pharmacies. Then relatives of people who had narcolepsy, lived at that moment in Europe and they offered to bring this drug from Europe to those people in Russia. Then the drug was confiscated at customs and a case was opened against these people, allegedly Wellbutrin contains “drug derivatives”, although this is NOTHING written about Wellbutrin, and there are no substances in the composition that could indicate this, there are no such substances officially, even the manufacturer doesn’t mention it. It is clear that there is no justice in that country, and that these people could simply be put behind bars. Well, they “scared” people once again and soon released them. It’s was just recently. Such biased cases about “narcotic substances” are common here.
And I assume, US is turning into Russia/China 2.0
But it’s never a way to normalize that.
The techbro authoritarian society is coming.
Every sane person working in tech saw that coming, lol. Not saying that AI is bullshit, but it doesn’t do anything that marketing want you to believe.
10-15 years ago it was cloud everything. Now it’s AI. Gotta have a new hype to draw in the VC money. It’s a lot of the same players who got rich on the last hype cycle. Cloud was absolutely not bullshit and neither is AI. But like 90 percent of the claims are marketing fluff.
100%, AI moves in cycles related to scientific research, same as most other tech innovation funding hype boom/bust cycles.
Incremental scientific research delivers new possible features -> funding hype to be first to market -> engineering builds products based on new tech -> people learn what it can and cannot do through use -> hype dies and funding dries up (you are here for LLMs) -> less funding stops engineering new products and research continues incremental changes until repeat.
It’s been that way for AI since the 80s with expert systems, then deep nets, and now LLMs. I suspect a lot of layoffs over the past year have been related to over committing to commercial office space and AI solutions not delivering projected ROIs.
Incremental scientific research delivers new possible features -> funding hype to be first to market -> engineering builds products based on new tech -> people learn what it can and cannot do through use -> hype dies and funding dries up (you are here for LLMs) -> less funding stops engineering new products and research continues incremental changes until repeat.
TLDR: AI works on goverment funding.
Deepseek is good locally.
It’ll require us to create an actual AI first, but yeah when that day comes shit’s gonna get real wild real fast.
And no, the glorified spellchecker-on-steroids we’re all calling AI but isn’t actual intelligence isn’t gonna cut it. Fun toy though.
It’s artificial as in fake, not man-made and it’s been that way since the 70’s. It’s only the pop-sci definition that’s inaccurate. AI has always been about faking decision making whether it is an adversarial AI in a video game or a chat bot. You can hate the overhyped wallstreet buzz around LLMs, but this semantic argument crap has just been annoying.
It’s artificial as in fake, not man-made and it’s been that way since the 70’s
‘Artificial’ isn’t the part of it that’s in question, lol. And computing has been around since way before the 70s.
AI has always been about faking decision making
That isn’t intelligence.
adversarial AI in a video game or a chat bot
are examples of A but not I.
this semantic argument crap has just been annoying.
Agreed. Words have meanings, and while we fuck it up a lot by not understanding the meaning or by some marketing department deliberately using the wrong words to sell something to people who don’t know any better, none of that means the words don’t have meanings.
Unless we’re going with the whole “we’ve used it incorrectly long enough that that’s what it means now cuz language evooooolves!” shit, and honestly, maybe we have crossed that line, but that shit’s above my paygrade.
Okay here we go.
Define intelligence for me please
Pick your poison., ofc barring the entries that don’t fit the context of what we’re talking about, like ‘military intelligence’ which is ultimately just data.
If you want it in my own words, I’d say it’s how information is handled, and includes the entire sequence of receiving information, evaluating that information, making a decision based on that evaluation, and then assessing the results of that decision.
There’s more to it than just input -> output, even if it’s a really complex input or output.
How 'bout you?
glorified spellchecker-on-steroids
What?
After this one?
What application is this?
CHAINA
I read that in Trump’s voice lol
Is now a good time to invest in stocks?
Now is just as speculative a time to buy as yesterday. Stocks are unstable. Maybe someone will prove DeepSeek lied and stocks will explode again. Maybe they’ll be proven true and stocks will drop much more.
Do you have money to throw away?
Buy the dip
Buying the dip tends to work when the stock drops below actual value or below their peers, when there’s reason to expect some sort of regression to the norm.
We’re currently still in bubble territory. This is more speculation, more gambling. You only have reason to expect more wild swings
Question: Stock rises as a result of its perceived value correct? So if a stock drops below its actual value, and many traders, having the knowledge that it’s better to buy the dip when a stock drops below actual value or their peers, buy the dip, isn’t it guaranteed that the stock rises?
I don’t know how the stock market works, so this might be a dumb question.
It’s a good question, but stocks are a lot less logical than you may think. Bubble stocks, especially, are very emotion driven, very much FOMO.
For “boring” stocks, there are statistical models using all sort of financial data about the company, including things like assets, sales trends, new product predictions. Those stock’s prices will appear logical and relatively stable/predictable, but will make significant jumps either way as news comes out that may affect it. Investors buy or sell based on what they predict will happen, and make money if they get it right.
But for “exciting” stocks, this model doesn’t work as well anymore. The stock price is driven more by what people expect it will be in the future. Take Tesla stock as a great example. The price is sky high compared to the value of the company or its sales, very much unlike other car manufacturers what do you do when it’s still a minor company in vehicles sold, but the total stock value is far higher than any other? The CEO has made made some extremely ambitious predictions, that may justify the stock price, but are those predictions really going to happen? You may have heard in the news about investors “shorting” Tesla stock, usually represented as people who don’t believe in the future. The thing is, these were usually investors looking at the actual value of the company, the actual sales, even actual predictions of sales and deciding this does not justify that kind of stock price. They’ve usually been wrong and lost money, because the stock is not fact-driven, but emotion-driven. Now that CEO has come out with some extremely controversial views and is distracted from actually running his businesses, so that also affects the emotion around buying that stock. Will it still achieve the wild predictions? Do you have personally reasons to not invest in that person?
What is your perceived value of a stock? What is your prediction of how it will change in the future, based on how well the company is run, what their products, sales, and support are like, how their industry may change, and news that may affect them? For an established, stable stock, you can predict enough to reliably make money, but changes will be small so you won’t make a lot. For a new stock driven by hype, with the potential to revolutionize an industry, predictions are more like a gamble, more based on emotion than fact. However stock price changes in both directions will be big, so investors can make or lose a lot of money very fast, depending on timing.
Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation
The best time is yesterday. The second best time is today.
Some of you seriously need to stop living and dying by a daily heat map. We’re at levels that we were at months ago. Anybody who bought months ago is doing fine. Learn to zoom out.
Did ye aye
