MotoAsh

Right, but this is about the noteworthiness of talking about someone shorting AI. Who cares if joe schmoe from accounting shorted their six shares? It’d only be newsworthy if it’s someone with significant investment or supposed insider knowledge shorting it.

“multiple people” doesn’t mean much unless it’s one of the top twenty people that own most of the stock market.

They got their user base by being the first ones to have open access to it. Being the first to market OFC gives a massive advantage.

You are also using flawed logic. This isn’t AI vs everything. This is ONLY the “AI” products compared to themselves. These same exact numbers could happen with 1000 users across the entire world, yet you claim it’s evidence of general public acceptance.

Flawed logic is bad logic. ChatGPT also sells their services to other corporations, where several of the others are end-user only, so again, you are using flawed logic to pretend like everyone actually wants this horseshit.

ChatGPT sold themselves as the easy way to add “AI” to products. I would not be surprised what so ever if the VAST majority of ChatGPT’s usage came from other people forcing it into their products (like all the companion apps) and not actual, direct interest in AI from the general populace.

Think of it like mobile gaming. Most people do not spend much money at all on the microtransaction bullshit. Though it’s still successful in making the company money, thanks to whales and other uncommon big spenders. It would be totally unsurprising if GPT is getting their numbers in a similar fashion. Not from end users, but from selling it as a service to other companies and a very small percentage of heavy users.

The problem with shorting is you have to guess when the bubble pops. Call it too early, and you don’t get the short at all. Call it too late, and any possible earnings may get wiped out by rebounds and/or new bubbles.

Read my last paragraph, then. It’s not how much MS gets in everyones’ face. It’s the specific avenues in which these companies are exposed. Google is everywhere on a platform that people don’t have to install to try things out, or have it automatically execute without permission.

MS is not. Do you not remember the MASSIVE outcry when MS said they were turning on Copilot for everyone? They tried to shove it everyones’ faces ala google, but their avenues for forcing shit are plainly different.

Because they’re easier to ignore and disable than the biggest advertiser and search platform on the planet that gets their grubby hands in everything? MS doesn’t have nearly as much of an online presence, and that’s exactly where these “AI” are getting used.

On top of that, Google gets to feed search queries into their AI and generate results for most searches. Copilot does not get to arbitrarily answer every search someone types in to Windows.

So… yea, in a way, everyone else is more capable of forcing engagement than MS. Would you be more likely to try something that’s merely available on a website, or more likely to enable a technology that could extract all of your personal information from your computer on accident?

When the competition is replacing workers en masse, yes.

You realize these companies can force growth via cramming it in to every channel they own, right? You realize growth on paper is not public endorsement, right?

Ehhhhhh… Sure some genders will have benefits in certain sports, but… so what?! Let the individuals with the skills be recognized.

At the level of world-class athletes, they’re ALL genetic freaks of nature. Who the flying fuck cares what’s between their legs?! They’re already uniquely gifted. Just let the entire spectrum of humanity shine, for fuck’s sake.

There is no way. He’s powered by the stupidity of Americans, and Americans are VERY stupid.

lol, lmao

Really depends on the content. Real life, recorded for TV, where there’s not a ton of in focus detail? Yea it doesn’t matter much. Documentary, videogame, or other content where they try to keep everything in focus? It can make a huge difference.

Though I tend to watch things on a high quality computer monitor, not a tv across the room, so details stand out a lot more in the first place.

It doesn’t take an expert to think, “if they have to reload more often and cannot have easy access to tweaks like bumpstocks, they won’t be able to shoot as much lead.”

This isn’t rocket science.

The edit was to cover an additional point I noticed. Why are you reading so much into it? You’re being downvoted because you’ve put an attempt at a political meme into a science sub, expecting a science community to agree with politically charged topics.

Now you’re jumping to conclusions about why, because surely most people don’t disagree with you!

Just chill out dude. You’ll have a much better time here and IRL.

lol I’m not wrong.

Well in that case, the image is based on the false dichotomy that doesn’t exist of the parties’ policies. Most dems don’t want to remove all guns. They just want to keep guns out of crazies’ hands and some want to limit availability of particular things so any subsequent mass shooter has a harder time just endlessly popping off shots like the Vegas shooter… They do not fail to understand guns.

Ontop of that, vaccines are a very strange thing to put in opposition to guns. I know what you’re trying for, but it is again based in ignorance. Vaccines are a universal good. There is a reason, a good reason, vaccines are required in order to go to schools. Whether the pharma industry works off of capitalistic practices is a wholly separate thing. Just because big pharma is a piece of shit capitalist enterprise should not reflect poorly on vaccines themselves.

The pills need to be opposed decisions. Not the same thing with a different industry.

Yes.

So skibidi and influencer tier jokes? I hope not…