I've had this quixotic idea that I could firmly click-wrap full-content behind some Terms of Service, where they agree to some not-unconscionable but rather serious obligations for any model that was trained on my stuff. Kind of like how the GPL uses copyright, except it's contract-law.
For example, a right to all their model-weights on request, plus permission to republish them.
Granted, this relies on some long-shot ideas, and the assumption that the legal system won't just say "big companies can auto-hack their way around a contract, but regular people have to obey it."
The first thing that comes to mind is how reliably you can prove that your content was used. And if you can't, at that point it becomes too late to do anything else about it.
Meanwhile, some three-letter-agency is like: "Damnit, if only we'd known, we could've put in an early backdoor concept-phrase for everything! Well, the second-best time is today..."
I see it as a facet of a larger thing where humans are instinctively driven to create stories--even oversimplified ones--about the world to capture and explain it.
It also happens in stories about how X was invented/discovered in history (ignoring a thousand required incremental steps and simultaneous discoveries) or how we can't help but intuit patterns in data we abstractly know is random ("hot streaks", "the coin is overdue for landing the other way".)
Stories about Newton seem oversimplified to me. Yes he was good, yes he came up with stuff, but he was also a good integrator (heh) of existing knowledge.
I vaguely remember doing a self-challenge pacifist run... I think I had to move all the unconscious bodies on the PCRS Wall Cloud up to the dock, because otherwise, I would be indirectly responsible if it sank while they were unable to evacuate.
Sure, I've done at least a dozen of less-violent runs (being addicted to this game and a couple of others), but you still can't get though it without ever killing anyone, at least not without hacks exploiting NPC pathfinding bugs, and the game still treats characters like Anna as dead even if you work around it.
I choose to believe that whomever Paul defends himself from is not-my-fault as I hide inside the Covert Closet. (Though speed-running out the front is fine too.)
There is not a big difference between unconscious bodies and dead bodies in the game, after all, they never wake up. The real challenge is playing without harming anybody, which is possible up to one or two specific situations.
Or were there unconscious bodies on the ship from before your arrival? I do not remember that anymore.
My memory is hazy--a decade or more will do that--but I have this picture in my head of using the Pepper Spray (which temporarily neutralizes enemies without knocking them out) on the Wall Cloud crew inside the helicopter room control deck, so that I could get past them to some necessary switch or terminal.
It might be the "carry everyone to shore" thing was on a different playthrough...
> Stock market reporting is always pretty funny. "Stocks went up because the Democrats won!" "Stocks went down because the democrats won!"
Both of these can be true. The reporting is just capturing the sentiment driving the market. There might be a relief rally that things will stabilize now, followed by a panic that data centers will not be built according to the expected schedule.
> Why aren’t the dot centers bribing the locals with infrastructure?
It might be that they can't. (Well, not without spending even more money or time.)
They're looking for power which:
1. Fits on-site, rather than needing more space or being far away and dependent on the grid.
2. Can be ramped up on-demand, to keep their stuff running if there's a blackout.
3. Prioritizes their facility with "first dibs" when there are brownouts or other issues.
4. Can be built quickly so that they can finish the facility and start selling/renting.
These requirements are tend to conflict with the goals of making cheap power for sale: An offshore wind-farm might mollify local ratepayers, but it doesn't do anything for their facility reaching "ready".
This is a perfect argument getting in the way of a good solution.
There's nothing to stop hyperclouds from finishing it with temporary nat gas behind the meter now and striking long-term power purchase agreements that fund extra utility build-out.
They're not doing that because (a) it costs more and (b) nobody has made them.
Hopefully that'll change with a bluer Texas, new Congress, and more assertive municipalities.
There's a trivial path to win/win here, if the companies were universally required to enter into sustainable deals (both financially and environmentally). Even playing field nationally = no particular cloud wins by finding the rube locality that will accept a bad datacenter deal.
It's hard to beat the immediacy of trucking in turbines. Framing this as an either/or leads to bikeshedding. Why not allow them the now solution and mandate a better intermediate-term relacement?
When the economic incentive to run them is costlier than a viable alternative.
If in a year Mississippi said "Plants are ready to deliver on that power purchase agreement you signed, at a lower cost than onsite turbines" then they'd be turned off.
Yet instead of a PPA, xAI contracted with TVA for wholesale power, is building their own dedicated turbines, and is using mobile turbines temporarily.
None of that helps the regional electricity market, because it's not integrated.
I think part of them problem is that xAI is ALREADY operating more gas turbines than they have permits for.
IMO data centers themselves are environmentally unobjectionable, but gas turbines are loud polluters and it should be almost impossible to get permits for more than a few months at a time.
The existing law could be used to stop them just fine but Trump has no interest in that.
While I like the general thrust of that idea, there are some kinks to work out.
For example, suppose someone pays $/month for Cubic Zirconia Membership Tier on a site that boosts their posts over the hoi polloi.
That person makes a post hyping up their company or product with a link. Isn't that also a "paid advertisement", just with a different payment scheme? What happens if their product is a scam or otherwise legally-problematic? If gets Section 230 protection, how can we prevent sites/advertisers from abusing the new definition?
For example, a right to all their model-weights on request, plus permission to republish them.
Granted, this relies on some long-shot ideas, and the assumption that the legal system won't just say "big companies can auto-hack their way around a contract, but regular people have to obey it."
reply