In other words, media as a “service” makes more money than media as a one-point sale. Why should they sell you a one-point solution when the service model makes more money for the shareholders? I love the shareholder economy; it makes all our lives better and makes us focus on what really matters at the end of the day, which is, of course, profits for people who already have too much money. :) very cool
Again, none of the people at this talk have anything to do with selling a product or pushing an agenda or whatever you think. There is no press, there is no marketing, there is no product - it was basically a meetup of private equity firms that discussed the implementation and impact of purpose-trained AI in diverse fields, which affects the business structure of the big single-family office behemoths, like an industry summit for the private equity sector regarding the future of AI and how some plan to implement it (mainly big non-public SFOs).
Sometimes people just meet to discuss strategy; no one at these talks is interested in selling you anything or buying anything - they are essentially top management and/or members of large single-family offices and other private equity firms. They are not interested in selling or marketing something to the public; they are not public companies.
It’s weird how you guys react; not everything is a conspiracy or a marketing thing. It’s pretty normal in private equity to have these closed talks about global phenomena and how to deal with it.
These talks are more to keep the industry informed. I get that you do not like it when essentially the big SFOs have a meeting where they discuss their future plans on a certain topic, but it’s pretty normal that the elite will arrange themselves to coordinate some investments. It’s essentially just the offices of the big billionaire families coming together to put heads together to discuss a topic that might influence their business structure. But, in no way is it a marketing strategy; it would, on the contrary, be negatively viewed in the public eye that big finance is already coordinating to implement AI into their strategy.
But feelings don’t change facts. My point is if the actual non public big players are looking at AI in a serious matter, then so should you.
Haha, lol, whats happening why do you hate me, just sharing an experience, an opinion?
I have already said too much - just let me tell you if you think LLMs are the pinnacle of AI, you are very mistaken, and depending on your position in the market, you need to take AI into account. You can only dismiss AI if you have a position/job with no real responsibility.
So weird how you guys think everything is to sell you something or a conspiracy - this was a closed talk to discuss how the leaders in certain industries will adapt to the coming changes. They give zero cares about the B2C market, aka you as an individual.
Again, none of the people at this talk have anything to do with selling a product or pushing an agenda or whatever you think. There is no press, there is no marketing - it was basically a meetup of private equity firms that discussed the implementation and impact of purpose-trained AI in diverse fields, which affects the business structure of the big single-family office behemoths.
Hi, I don’t want to say too much, but after being invited to some closed AI talks by one of the biggest chip machine manufacturers (if you know the name, you know they don’t mess around), I can tell you AI is, in certain regards, a very powerful tool that will shape some, if not all, industries by proxy. They described it as the “internet” in the way that it will take influence on everybody’s life sooner or later, and you can either keep your finger on the pulse or get left behind. But they distinguished between the “AI” that’s floating around in the public sector vs. actual purpose-trained AI that’s not meant for public usage. Sidenote: They are also convinced the average user of a LLM is using it the “wrong” way. LLMs are only a starting point.
Also, it’s concerning; I’m pretty sure the big boys have already taken over the AI market, so I do not trust that it will be to the benefit of all of us and not only for a select group (of shareholders) that will reap the benefits.
Nope, it’s not possible. The only way it wouldn’t be treason is if all states agree, or if they start a revolution and are successful; every other attempt would simply be treason. Hence, one nation indivisible. I’m sure they know that; they just want to push as far as they can to make the political situation even more absurd in America. They want to widen the gap between the people. I don’t know who exactly profits from this situation, but it’s not the American people.
Here’s a video that explains it quite well: [Legal Egal] (https://youtu.be/1dhvry6E0jA?si=H62qIoiHzaLdJHQF)
Yeah, I know that, XD but why?
What makes it so that you think you should be able to get creators and their content, server capacity, and storage for free? Who should be paying for it in your mind? Who should eat the cost? The creators, the platform, or the user? or all of them to a degree? And who should be able to profit?
I think it’s pretty clear that the end-user will carry most of the cost in the end.
YouTube cannot do that. YouTube’s content legal system does not allow this.
That said, I use SponsorBlock and love it to the degree of finding it necessary depending on what type of content I am watching.
Why do people hate YouTube Premium anyway? I don’t quite get it. I have had it since it was available in my country, and I love it.
Also, I have to say I use the YouTube Vanced app with SponsorBlock and custom layout (no shorts, no uploads, no etc.) and YouTube Premium subscription. I don’t like the default YouTube app.
So, I don’t know if I like YouTube or just the model and content/creators behind it.
oh yeah for sure could be a reaction to the opium wars
It’s never the drugs that make a society erode; it’s a symptom. If you have a big drug problem in a country, most likely it’s related to much bigger issues at the core. Like in the Opium Wars, it was the British Empire that basically drugged China as a means to get what they want. It’s not like they discovered drugs and then just stopped doing anything else; we humans had drugs and used drugs since we know about them.
Some argue this tactic is still very much in use today, hence the fentanyl crisis, which seems to be fueled by China. It’s a destabilizing tactic. That’s also part of why China and other Asian countries are so strict because they know firsthand the effectiveness of literally drugging your foe to gain an advantage. This does not mean China and co do not have their own drug market; they have a pretty vivid drug scene.
Also, as an example, Japan or China, yeah, sure, you can’t buy weed; they will basically curb-stop you legally. But you can drink as much alcohol as you want, smoke as much tobacco as you want, and drink as many caffeine drinks as you want. These are all recreational drugs with a much higher impact on society than weed, yet they are totally legal and accepted by everyone or are even traditional.
No more awards and such, I guess. It will be terminated in September. I came across some screenshots of people attempting to get a refund, explaining that they had purchased so many Reddit coins that they couldn’t distribute them before the shutdown. Meanwhile, here I am, observing individuals who possess more wealth in Reddit coins (which hold no real-life value) than I have to buy food for a year. We truly live in a strange world. I don’t know why they decided to get rid of it, but it does seem odd, especially considering there are people who even “whale” within the Reddit community.
I never argued that I was in IT/Tech; I deal with investments and PE. I have nothing to do with IT or tech. My point is we, in the PE/FO sector, are going to invest in AI businesses in 24/25, not only in the “B2C market” but mainly in the B2B market and for internal applications. Whether you believe it or not, it’s gonna happen anyway.