• Fiona@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    3 days ago

    Anyone who thinks this was about getting AI working was the idiot from the start, there still isn’t even a real use-case for it. This was always about funneling huge amounts of money from the government budget to a bunch of rich assholes. The outcome doesn’t matter at all here.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      there still isn’t even a real use-case for it

      There are several real use cases for it, it’s just that they’re worth like ten bucks a month to me all together and OpenAI is running at a loss while charging… *checks notes* 200 dollars per month for their top tier model?

    • Sticky Fedi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      Venture capitalists using the US gov as their new marketing platform is a joke in it self.

      What’s next? Is the next White House briefing gonna be in a stadium, with laser show, motivational music and some ponce going on stage to hype people up?

      Griftonomics has reached the upper levels, y’all.

      • TheFriar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        And making starving artists’ lives even more unlivable. And taking human creativity and joy from humans.

        While destroying the environment. It’s so efficient.

    • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      So, basically the military industrial complex (which liberals support!) but with less genocide? Don’t get me wrong, I hate Trump and Republicans are clearly the greater evil, but liberals have helped conservatives funnel trillion of dollars in public assets to the 1% for decades. It was under Bill Clinton that the internet, which was publically funded and publicly built, was given to the 1%. So to me, this is just more of the same: capitalist politicians stealing from us to make the 1% wealthier.

      • Auli@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        How was the Internet given to the 1% under Clinton? And people gave it to the tech companies. Internet was supposed to be a bunch of independent sites. But it is easier to just go to a few.

      • MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        The internet as a physical entity was created by the telecommunications industry as they owned and laid all the cabling. Why would you think Clinton gave the internet to the 1% when telecoms owned the entirety of the phone and cable network to begin with?

      • labbbb2@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        helped conservatives funnel trillion of dollars in public assets to the 1% for decades. It was under Bill Clinton that the internet, which was publically funded and publicly built, was given to the 1%.

        Do you have any proof, or is it just conspiracy theory?

        So you want to say that liberals who oppose wealth inequality themselves support that same billionaires? What a BS.

        P.S. It seems that democratic party in US is more right-wing than “social democratists” as in the EU, looking at their policies.

        • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Most democrat politicians aren’t Bernie Sanders or Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. Sure, other very progressive dems also do exists, but the majority are those “human-faced capitalism” types.

          • labbbb2@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Democratic party in US is more right-wing, looking at their politices. But by liberals I meant center-left like “social democratists” in the EU.

        • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          The person you’re replying to may be much further to the left than you give them credit for.

          The lesser of two evils is still evil and deserves to be called such. The US is not a benevolent nation.

      • mosscap@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Taking the insanely massive emissions of the AI industry, it may not be genocide in the traditional sense, but it’s contributions alone will lead to people dying

      • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        There’s an exclusive choice between UBI or genocide. AI/Automation as a tool for prosperity whose profits are shared/redistributed, vs. continued power concentration with extermination of an unnecessary slave class. AI developers finding more profit in assisting military complex for war supremacy, and political power over oppressing people who are made tolerant of war priorities, makes betting on genocide and robocop slums a heavy favorite.

        Trump’s focus, with KSA and Massasan investments, is fossil fuel consuming datacenters. It is possible that focus on preventing China access to tech may take a back seat to China helping enrich US tech companies through imports (Taiwan made hardware)/purchases.

        Datacenters in US doesn’t stop Chinese ones, or make it a good idea for anyone the US threatens (everyone) to use their data hosting services. Furthermore, US energy policy is shifting more strongly towards extortionist climate terrorism. Energy will be cheaper outside of US, and then so will datacenter costs.