AI, as good or evil as human nature allows

Your boiled brain smells like urine.

 

Trump has a golden shower daily. No-one has a better golden shower than Trump, really, it's the best. He also has a golden bath and a golden toilet.

 

The AI with some Medicare Advantage plan totally believes I'm old enough for Medicare. I guess to AI, age truly is just a number.

 

G'damn, look at that bubble!

 

Man, that isnot a bubble, it's an aneurysm in the heart aorta.

 

It appears that Nvidia are "round tripping", which I believe is where:

Company A gives Company B $100 million;
Company B takes that $100 million and gives it back to Company A;
Both companies book the $100 million as revenue.

Nvidia also appears to be selling chips to the big AI companies at multiples of their regular price in return for investment or loans.

All of this, if it is happening, which it may or not be, is highly illegal. It's the sort of thing a small businessman would get locked up for while tech bros get away with it.

 

It’s not illegal, it’s disruption. Innovation. Synergy.

 

I'm giving you one zillion stock options, right now!

 

I hadn't seen this before but this is a case where OpenAI is being sued because their product contibuted to a kids suicide. Apparently this case isn't alone.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgerwp7rdlvo

 

And I will do likewise for you tomorrow!

 

OpenAI's newest strategy is to being back the obsequious chatbots and introduce adult content.

That's what the people want, but is that what the hundreds of billions of dollars were ultimately supposed to produce? You could have hired people to suck up to you or talk dirty to you for a lot less.

 

This sounds pretty bubbly to me:

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/21/are-we-in-an-ai-bubble.html

How many of these make a profit? I'm willing to guess essentially zero.

 

Pets.com.ai

 

In the Netherlands it is recomended NOT to use/ask AI chatbots to match your political preferent subjects to parties supporting them.
They give completely wrong advices. Given the results I saw from question=>answer, I wonder if there's not election manipulation going on by the Big Tech firms.
For instance a talkshow host wanted to see if he literally quoted a party's slogans, the advice (from google AI) would come up with that party. Nope.

 

I can't recall which comedian had a bit about humanoid robots in fiction and the thing all those sci-fi stories get wrong is that if those thing ever were real, the sexbots would be the first thing to be built.

Anyway, that guy might have been closer to the truth than I thought, since apparently lots of folks want to have sexy times with ChatGPT?

 

The AI newsreader of the British Channel 4. © KameraOne



AI presenter reveals live on British TV: 'I don't really exist' British TV viewers were surprised on Monday night by a presenter who turned out not to be real, but an AI creation.

I find the remark "live on tv" quite funny

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...es-voice-ordering-new-menu-items/86815064007/

 

Kind of a war-on-Christmas thing, but I want to talk about the AI.

Coca Cola has released a AI generated Christmas ad, the second year in a row they have done this.



This is far less bad than last year's, but there still a host of problems (like how the trucks change details and even kind of truck in every shot or why tropical animals are in the far north). You can get away with this in a commercial, but it shows you can't yet make any sort of longer work which actually has the attention of the viewer.

And it's not like this took much less work either. They generated 70,000 individual 3-second clips and pieced together the best 60 seconds worth. How much would that have cost if AI wasn't subsidized by morons? How much power did it take?

I have an extension on my browser allowing me to see that opposite its 1.4K upvotes it has 21K downvotes, and the comments are brutal.

 

The stuff coming out now is just screaming top-of-the-bubble. First, OpenAI wants the Federal Government to guarantee the loans made to it.

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/openai-wants-federal-backstop-investments-201700279.html

They can't get enough money without the co-sign, which in a rational world means they shouldn't be doing what they are doing. The only thing this will do is leave citizens holding the bag and the deed to useless warehouses full of worn out chips when it's over.

Worse yet, AI wants to spend 13-15% of all power in the United States to power chips they already bought.

1986139004912243002 is not a valid tweet id

https://nitter.poast.org/WaveGodMcFly/status/1986139004912243002#m

I think it's clear that if the AI future depends on this amount of power (and I do not think this AI is the future) then China is going to win with absolute certainty because they have a much newer grid than we do.

 

Saw this illustrating a news story today. There are some minor airline delays in Europe.

Couldn't they just have used a stock photo?

 

I don't get the urge to use pictures that have nothing to do with the story.
I see that all the time in a newspaper overhere with the caption "photo for illustration".
It angers me, being fed with crap nonsense.
Like in an article about police being deployed somewhere in a neighbourhood.
Illustrated by a policecar foto, but not from the incident.
Do those imbecils think I need to be reminded how a policecar looks like?
An article about a baby injured....babyfoto for illustration..........

 

The absolute worst is Visual Framing. That's when you see, for example, a story about how Taylor Swift broke some financial record and the accompanying photo is a stock image of her glowing. But if the story is about how her new album got bad reviews, the accompanying photo will be a stock photo of her with a sad grimace. It's the absolute laziest form of storytelling that's ever existed. Every single dumb Facebook meme that Cascarino posts on here uses it.

Once you notice it, you'll see it everywhere all the time.

Ryan Broderick has a unified theory of the internet which goes something like this. In the olden days, storytelling nearly always had an arc. Viz, the hero is introduced to the viewer, the hero would face a challenge, the hero would overcome the challenge, the viewer would feel emotion based on the connection to the hero. But on the internet today, the hero's journey has become pornographic. Not in a sexual way necessarily, but rather in the way that the viewer receives a sensation (ecstasy, anger, etc.) from an impulse, rather than from a story arc.

His example par excellence is Dubai Chocolate. There's no story, no arc, just an attractive woman fellating a piece of chocolate. And yet it was a hit everywhere in the same way that Homer and Van Gogh and Katrina & The Waves were.

Visual Framing in the news is possibly the lowest, most basic form of this. The content of the article is completely irrelevant; the important thing is that we feel a sensation when we see a photograph of of someone we hate smiling or frowning.

 

I’m only posting this for the creepy AI video

https://bsky.app/profile/didlc:g6hyekozrdbyuhvqd5pfemxh/post/3m4z2ox34cs2g?ref_src=embed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fballoon-juice.com%2F