The actors running astroturfing will just continue to get direct access. If those sites cared about those things they would have done something long ago.
All the verification process does is making astroturfing and propaganda campaigns even more desirable.
You are injecting a lot of assumptions and wishful thinking to view the removal of ownership from this equation as a net positive.
I see no reason to assume that this would lead to the disappearance of parked cars or to more trees. Our corporate overlords will want to make use of that space for more cars or infrastructure to support the new car network, why would they ever just give it back willingly?
The amount of money to get over that hump is small. Many people in poverty are happy. If you are at the very bottom with not enough to eat and such money can buy happiness, but you can be below the poverty line and still be about as happy as everyone.
This is a lie that people with money tell themselves to make themselves feel better about not giving away more of their money (ironically, proving themselves correct).
There's certainly a point of diminishing returns, and I'd even agree that it is a cliff. Once you have a decent place to live, and your day-to-day worries about paying the bills are covered, and unexpected emergencies do not threaten your ability to get to work, keep your job, and pay your rent, then for most people more money has a diminishing impact on happiness. But that amount of money is quite a bit more than the poverty line.
Quite a bit indeed. Forbes ran an article a few months ago claiming that a family of four with two incomes needs to be earning a combined $400K to be able to reasonably afford the paid child care needed for both parents to be working.
That hump is slightly above the average income level, so I wouldn't call it small. And it doesn't flatten at the hump -- people with more money are still generally happier, but the correlation does drop a lot.
No it's not. It might vary by country and culture but in the west that amount has consistently been found to be well over the poverty line and more often over double the median household income.
The pattern I see here is people vibing slop rewrites of GPL projects to get them under more favorable licenses. Rust just happens to be the language this one picked (for various reasons that are not very relevant here.)
I'd say the "threat" of local models and user independence is currently (successfully) being fought by cutting off the supply and development of general computing devices and hardware.
The mentioned big few are buying up everything regardless of need and making hardware unaffordable and unavailable for normal people (or smaller businesses). And some of the few manufacturers are already being convinced to stop developing/producing consumer hardware altogether.
And whats left might be taken care of via the rise of attestation. Just start framing local, unapproved models as "security risks" at some point.
Forcing people to go through you by buying up the market supply of a commodity at 10x the production cost is a strategy that will inevitably collapse. More DRAM will get made if prices hold.
Most of the GPUs built in the past year are sitting in warehouses, just waiting for data centers to break ground and for electrical expansions to complete. And Nvidia can’t get China interested in buying their products in the Trump era.
There will be a massive glut of hardware soon enough. OpenAI needs $532billion in cashflow in the next 4 years to keep the “infinite money glitch” going. That’s not likely to happen unless AI makes some 10x value improvements for their customers in the next 1-2 years that we aren’t seeing now.
I mean aside from the somewhat...dishonest statements from the people involved, giving false explanations is one thing, but calling people who smelled this "overreacting" gives this a weird taste.
I am neutral on such a rewrite itself, there are pros and cons to the whole "rewrite in Rust" topic. People are making decent arguments. But the way the initiator here reacted makes it seem like the Bun team itself thinks they are doing something weird here...
Guess reviewing any code isn't exactly their thing either anymore? And I guess adjusting the tests themselves is certainly one way to make things pass.
Ultimately this just seems like it was done specifically to make Bun more "ai friendly". Whether it turns out good or not that appears to be the motivation behind it.
