Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

avkcode.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 718 posts

Re: The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

#451

Post by chrisco255 »

mghackerlady wrote: post #162
Ekaros wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just look at Iran. Nothing really happened to USA or Israel. Nothing will happen to China if they take Taiwan. Or maybe the "West" will boycott them and crash entirely.

they've made everyone very angry at them, and can handle that since everyone relies on them. China, however, is trying to build that trust and forcefully taking Taiwan would have very severe consequences. The reason the fallout from iran isn't as big as the fallout from a war with taiwan is because most of the west at most puts up with iran. Invading taiwan, meanwhile, would cause massive problems with chip productio…

The difference is Iran is a terrorist regime that murders its own citizens and funds violence across the middle east.

Re: The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

#452

Post by ngruhn »

chrisco255 wrote: post #445
ngruhn wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but doing it forcefully just isn't something China would realistically do unless they really don't like their path of becoming an international trade and manufacturing hub Sounds rational, but this decision is in a small number of hands. And those hands can change quickly. I also thought the US would never threaten to annex territory of a NATO member.

Offer to purchase imperial territory of a NATO member is not the same as a threat to annex it.

But threat to annex is what's happening.

Re: The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

#453

Post by vel0city »

ericmay wrote: post #413
vel0city wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the one arguing iPhones are only status symbols. If anything, if I only had the money to spend on a single computing device there's a good chance I'd go for an iPhone due to excellent durability, typically long support timelines, lots of extremely cheap accessories available, high chance of low cost serviceability compared to other devices. There's also a pretty good used marketplace for such devices so picki…

I am arguing they’re not status symbols and using how cheaply available they are as evidence that they’re not. Anyone can get one, some companies run free promotions, some do delayed interest programs, some amortize the price over a 2-year time period. Who cares? The details here weren’t important. Apparently Verizon ran some promo in the past and may again in the future giving away iPhones. Why be so argumentative o…

> Who cares?

People who prefer truth in advertising.

> Why be so argumentative over something so stupid?

I don't want people to believe untrue marketing statements and make poor financial decisions without actually bothering to read the fine print.

> some companies run free promotions

This just isn't true. They're not really "free". They come with lots of financial commitments.

> Apparently Verizon ran some promo in the past and may again in the future giving away iPhones

They still say they do on their website. If you're getting one "free" iPhone it comes with a commitment to spend at least $65/mo for 36 months. A commitment to spend $2,340 is a lot different from $0.

These are far from "free" phones. Can I go into a Verizon store, not give them a dime or sign any contracts and walk out with a phone free and clear to do whatever I want? No? Sounds like it's not really free then!

My point is if you're poor/homeless you're probably not looking to sign a 3-year commitment to spend a few grand to get a "free" phone. A lot of those people won't even pass the credit check to qualify to even sign up for one of these post-paid plans required to get the "free" phone. If you're really broke you would probably be looking at signing up for a lifeline plan and get yourself a cheap used iPhone instead of signing up for a $2,340 contract.

Re: The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

#454

Post by lmm »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #234
bluGill wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately if you are wrong it is an even worse disaster and so if there is any possibility we are all forced to play their game.

A grifting military industrial complex is unable to defend Taiwan even if it wanted to as evident by the exceedingly poor showing with Iran. The disastrous reality of doing what was done is already with us. If the US didn't take that bait it could have made better choices that would have left it in a stronger position militarily long term, if it made a real attempt at re-shoring civilian manufacturing it could cross…

> If the US didn't take that bait it could have made better choices that would have left it in a stronger position militarily long term

Like what though? If the problem is that not going to actual war has enabled the MIC to be captured by grifters, then "taking the bait" and going to war should actually help improve that by showing up the grifters and giving us a chance to switch to making stuff that works.

Re: The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

#456

Post by esseph »

chrisco255 wrote: post #450
esseph wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely not. Iran did billions in damage across the middle east, put a major dent in munitions stockpiles, and there is effectively no military way to shut down all of Iran and protect shipping. Too many drones, too many ballistic missiles, and it only takes one. This is basically like an insurgency on a macro level, where small and cheap weapons threaten very large very expensive targets.

Iran is completely blockaded right now: https://mynews4.com/news/nation-world/centcom-naval-blockade... The drones are useless if you dont have targeting systems which were taken offline by F35s 2 months ago.

Blocking Iran is going to do more damage to the world than it will do to Iran.

What targeting systems are you talking about? You can use optical targeting with a raspberry PI in the drone itself, pre programmed. Nothing for an F-35 to take out.

The EU is running out of jet fuel. 20-30% of the hydrogen needed for chip fab comes through the straight. Fertilizer for food comes through the straight, and planting season has already begun.

This was a political and economic disaster.

Re: The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

#457

Post by necovek »

saltcured wrote: post #376
Jalad wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if someone invents super intelligence, they can dominate new AI research, control global economies, fight much better, and all very quickly. After reading "If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies" I think this is not the correct take. If anyone creates ASI, it just means it's going to wipe everyone out, and it doesn't matter if China or the US do it first

What does "dominate new AI research" really mean? If AI develops enough to successfully out-perform people at highly intellectual tasks, why would being first matter? Why do we need "your" AI output when we can just ask our own for a similar result? Why do people think about this like the Manhattan Project when it could just as easily be electrification? Sure, some people made a lot of money selling light bulbs. But…

The way US dominated in some of the industries (including software, for instance) was by being first to extract large value, and then funding the best people with compensation unachievable elsewhere.

This meant that all the talent in the world gravitated towards the US, but that was gradually changing already with compensation catching up.

Still, I believe US only hastened this with their change of immigration policies that were the basis of them keeping a dominant position for decades.

Re: The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

#458

Post by phs318u »

hermannj314 wrote: post #388
ctkhn wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US needs to start imagining something else. It's hard to think of the last war that the US won.

On a technicality, America has won every war it has declared to be a war.

Like the war on drugs.

Re: The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

#459

Post by Danox »

mghackerlady wrote: post #117
bluGill wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't a war today. However China wants Taiwan: war is future option they preparing for - they might or might not go to war but they are clearly preparing. The US is likely to get involved in such a war and I would expect Europe to join in as well. Don't ask me what Trump is doing though.

China going for Taiwan would be the worst geopolitical move of the century, potentially worse than Germany's decision to invade the soviet union. They talk about reunification because it's good propaganda and both sides want it to a degree, but doing it forcefully just isn't something China would realistically do unless they really don't like their path of becoming an international trade and manufacturing hub

Or the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor which was another dumb move. At this point, the Chinese just need to bide their time by the year 2100 Taiwan will probably be part of China and North and South Korea probably will be reunified. Both are inevitable, and I don’t think it will take any shots went it happens.

Re: The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

#460

Post by f33d5173 »

irishcoffee wrote: post #367
nodja wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP here, leading and winning are different things in the race context/metaphor. In foot/cycling races there's often a pack leader, that leader is often not the winner of the race, all they're doing is taking the brunt of the air resistance while everyone else slipstreams behind. For a casual observer it seems that the pack leader will win, but everyone knows that it's gonna be someone that paced themselves that's goi…

You’re moving the goalposts and tying to one specific sport. I didn’t say “winner” nor did anyone else. “Winning” is the operative word, and tying the whole analogy to cycling is as close to a strawman as one can get while having the ability to claim otherwise.

The analogy to what "frontier" ai labs are doing is very close.
Post reply on HN