Mordikan

I had to lookup what “pumpfun” meant. It’s a platform that you can signup for to quite literally and openly have pump and dump scams run against you. That’s the level we are at now.

“It starts with people hold their governments and representatives accountable”.

That is basically a non-answer and doesn’t mean anything. The reality is AI is classified a national security priority and therefore has the US govt to prevent it from running out of money.

You could argue that the US has already lost the AI race to China, though. The race isn’t won by building the gigantic LLMs. It isn’t about 1 million token context windows or 1 trillion parameter models. It’s about sentiment. Deepseek and the other distilled models take a novel approach with MoE and strict use case training, but ultimately its the willingness of people/companies to use the AI that results in the win.

US adoption is still the highest world-wide, but China is starting to take the lead on that and have they have stronger willingness to use it.

AI isn’t anywhere close to being a pump and dump scheme as you speculate.

The reality is it would be closer to the dot com bubble (if anything at all). Most of the damage would be in physical infrastructure like datacenters which would be an asset write-off. However, there is tangible profitability in AI which we didn’t see in dot com. That would imply if the demand does not exist (which we know it does looking at DevOps, BI, etc) that should things go south, it would be a market correction and not a market collapse.

Again, the weak point and therefore the most hurt would be overvalued segments which is basically the datacenter infrastructure, but that doesn’t imply a collapse/pop only a downturn and correction.

There is so much AI hype and so much anti-AI hype, that I doubt it really will.

For the last 4 years, we have perpetually been 90 days from both the AI market crashing and AI stealing all our jobs at the same time.

My thought is the AI market won’t crash because especially in data engineering and devops there is an inherent worth. I think there will be a potential downturn in the volume of cash flowing into perhaps after the big players like OpenAI and Anthropic go to IPO, but the market itself will remain stable. Similar to how the housing bubble crash didn’t actually wipe out the housing market (with or without the US govt saving the big players - it still would have survived on its own even if those players did not).

25 years ago when I was a teenager I had a terrible problem with CD cases getting broken and thrown away. I would have those CD stack cases filled with loose random CDs and no keys. I believe it is still around but GameCopyWorld (just google it) is how I was forced to install.

Honestly, I should have just taped paper on the CD top with the keys, but I was a kid and didn’t think very far down the line.

Is this meant as a rhetorical question or are you seriously asking?

Denuvo CEO: “Well, actually, it makes things faster. We streamline the process through several other processes to output the same result. We like to think of it as a fun multiplier. That’s how Denuvo math works here.”

One thing to remember with VirusTotal is that it should only be used as a “tool of consensus”. A lot of AV solutions on their list will false flag binaries presumably to instill fear and get people to buy their solutions over more reputable AV providers. You want the AV that works the best which many people would equate to the most flagging (as logically incomplete as that may be).

If you are seeing 66 flags and many of those being from reputable vendors, then I would say that what they show is likely accurate. Accuracy and relevance being two different things. 100% accuracy on keygen tools doesn’t mean that it is a relevant flag to what you’re trying to do.

You could try software solutions like LOKI (the IoC scanner) or Azul to test specific binaries, though. I believe LOKI is just doing static analysis, but Azul I know automates the sandboxing.

Denuvo’s CEO (I think it was) tried to explain that it couldn’t impact performance, but that’s basically impossible. They are pushing parts of the game through a VM and doing encryption/decryption on the fly. That’s going to generate significant overhead. Whether it were to get pushed to GPU over CPU, blah blah, their DRM is still adding additional hoops for the machine to jump through.

Multiple people mentioned there are on the Epstein list. They probably misheard “kitty exploit” as “kiddy exploit”.

I mean you’re asking for more evidence without providing any yourself.

Saying “rare” or “antique” books are being destroyed requires more evidence. Since your stance is that is true, name one rare book they destroyed. That should be an easy answer if you have any evidence. Just name one.

I’ll wait…

So there have been a bunch of articles about this lately. They play loose with descriptions in their titles. Here is one example: https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-companies-destroying-rare-books

“Antique books”. One, notice they don’t mention any actual title or ISBN? Two, these are bought through a book reseller (like Book Depot or ThriftBooks), meaning that “antique” just means “used”.

In my personal library collection I have new books, I have used books, and I have rare books. These are not the same thing.

There is a game that is upcoming that I was interested in that clearly used generative AI in a gameplay trailer. I should say I’m not pro/anti generative AI. I’m right down the middle, I see the issues and the potential, so the presence of AI itself for me isn’t a deal killer (Crimson Desert for example).

But, the issue is that this game falsely represented what is going to be in the game. The lighting isn’t planned to be that good. The model rigging isn’t meant to be that fluid. Etc, etc. The problem is a matter of dishonesty.

If a developer uses generative AI for test assets and placeholders, I don’t see that as an issue (especially if they admit to and own that fact). If they use that material for trailers to showcase their work when that will not be part of the work, then that is a different story as that introduces that dishonesty.

If you can purchase a book at a bookstore, then it can be assumed there are sufficient copies in production. They aren’t buying rare books here.

There is a glaringly obvious issue with this article that I see a lot of people in the comments seem to have missed:

Only one copy of any given book exists The pretense to this entire thing is that AI companies are destroying the books both because of the process used AND to prevent competitors from accessing the book. There is more than ONE copy of that book. If you buy a book, that doesn’t prevent me from also buying that book. You can not like AI for a number of reasons, but this is just stupid.

NOTE: If destroying the book actually prevented competitors from accessing it, that means that all of these AI companies are only going out on the weekends to used bookstores looking for good deals on second hand books.

I’m just going to end this here with a final comment:

I know I’m not going to change your mind on this. It doesn’t matter what evidence I provide, you just aren’t ready to have that conversation. And that’s ok.

This has never really been about you. It’s been about all the others. It’s about showing how while there is a lot of AI hype, there is an equal amount of anti-AI hype. Misinformation is misinformation. Doesn’t matter your stance.

We have for 4 years now both simultaneously and perpetually been 3 months away from the AI bubble popping and 3 months away from AI stealing everyone’s job.

So, for those that see this insane comment history, understand as well intentioned as some of these posters are, most everything they say is completely fabricated. They are just passing it along without knowing any better.

I’m just going to end this here with a final comment:

I know I’m not going to change your mind on this. It doesn’t matter what evidence I provide, you just aren’t ready to have that conversation. And that’s ok.

This has never really been about you. It’s been about all the others. It’s about showing how while there is a lot of AI hype, there is an equal amount of anti-AI hype. Misinformation is misinformation. Doesn’t matter your stance.

We have for 4 years now both simultaneously and perpetually been 3 months away from the AI bubble popping and 3 months away from AI stealing everyone’s job.

So, for those that see this insane comment history, understand as well intentioned as some of these posters are, most everything they say is completely fabricated. They are just passing it along without knowing any better.

Ok, so despite everything you said, it is NOT the environmental impact that matters. What matters (at least now) is the number of services it provides. I hate to say it but “You’re just choosing to cherry pick one thing that everyone who’s upset should ignore.”

This is gonna sound like a broken record here but… https://kbin.earth/m/gaming@beehaw.org/t/3103626/ChatGPT-LLMs-and-Automating-the-Fun-Out-of-Roleplaying-Don-t/comment/14132956#entry-comment-14132956

Let’s be real here: If subject A destroys the environment and subject B destroys the environment to the same degree, why is the quality/quantity of service provided by either the deciding factor to you when you yourself have stated this is a matter of environmental concern? The outcome being the exact same, the path you take to it is irrelevant. That is the most illogical reason to be ok with anything. And this isn’t me putting words in your mouth, this is literally what you have stated in your comment history.

I’m curious though, what would I have to be doing for you to believe that I’m… I dont know, “allowed”? to talk about AI’s water usage impact?

I would say you are starting to approach an opposing view as treating yours as “wrong thought” when confronted. That is an absolutest method that is only ever used to justify what you think is right and vilify all else. It isn’t a matter of what is “allowed”. There is no restriction to that. But if you put out an idea or belief that can be deconstructed and proven incorrect/incomplete, then people have the right to speak against it.

There are lots of points you can make that are completely valid and evidentiary by nature, but AI water usage isn’t one of them. It has been debunked to point that I would bucket it into the same group that “vaccines cause autism” fit into.

EDIT: Actually I wanted to point out something about the trending mention. You say you don’t try to sway opinion on the meat industry but you do for AI because you get more traction. That’s called audience alignment and is part of shared identity signaling (used algorithmically to define what is currently trending).

Can run on a raspberry pi and does run on a raspberry pi are two different things. I don’t think raspberry pis are the solution here. I’m not cherry picking either as both are clear evils. That is the point. Current non-AI datacenters are using more power in total than AI datacenters. That may (and likely will) change, but the argument that AI datacenters are destroying the environment when the other is destroying it even more (but let’s ignore that one) is moronic by nature.

That by definition isn’t cherry picking. It’s pointing out the logical fallacy in popular thought.

I work in devops. These two things are more alike then you think.