If you want to know whether artificial intelligence is a gigantic economic bubble, don’t just take pundits’ word for it. Major investors are now moving their money to try to protect themselves from the AI bubble popping.

For an industry that we’re told is central to our collective future, the artificial intelligence (AI) industry increasingly seems to be built on a combination of artificially inflated hopes and bad accounting.

The industry’s critics have been raising concerns about its finances for a while: the fact that most of its flagship firms are grossly unprofitable, that they’ve had to jack up their prices to try break even (leading their business customers to pump the brakes on using their products), or that many of the eye-popping investment announcements that are meant to show demand for AI is strong have actually been circular financing — meaning different AI firms cycling money to and from each other.

But none of it has seemed to slow the industry’s boom or the relentless hype machine behind it. Until now, anyway. It used to be that you mostly heard concerns about the industry’s underlying economics in newspapers, blogs, social media posts, and podcasts, and that those concerns went completely unreflected in the markets. But these concerns seem now to have finally bled over into investors’ thinking.

If you want to know whether artificial intelligence is a gigantic economic bubble, don’t just take pundits’ word for it. Major investors are now moving their money to try to protect themselves from the AI bubble popping.

For an industry that we’re told is central to our collective future, the artificial intelligence (AI) industry increasingly seems to be built on a combination of artificially inflated hopes and bad accounting.

The industry’s critics have been raising concerns about its finances for a while: the fact that most of its flagship firms are grossly unprofitable, that they’ve had to jack up their prices to try break even (leading their business customers to pump the brakes on using their products), or that many of the eye-popping investment announcements that are meant to show demand for AI is strong have actually been circular financing — meaning different AI firms cycling money to and from each other.

But none of it has seemed to slow the industry’s boom or the relentless hype machine behind it. Until now, anyway. It used to be that you mostly heard concerns about the industry’s underlying economics in newspapers, blogs, social media posts, and podcasts, and that those concerns went completely unreflected in the markets. But these concerns seem now to have finally bled over into investors’ thinking.

If you want to know whether artificial intelligence is a gigantic economic bubble, don’t just take pundits’ word for it. Major investors are now moving their money to try to protect themselves from the AI bubble popping.

For an industry that we’re told is central to our collective future, the artificial intelligence (AI) industry increasingly seems to be built on a combination of artificially inflated hopes and bad accounting.

The industry’s critics have been raising concerns about its finances for a while: the fact that most of its flagship firms are grossly unprofitable, that they’ve had to jack up their prices to try break even (leading their business customers to pump the brakes on using their products), or that many of the eye-popping investment announcements that are meant to show demand for AI is strong have actually been circular financing — meaning different AI firms cycling money to and from each other.

But none of it has seemed to slow the industry’s boom or the relentless hype machine behind it. Until now, anyway. It used to be that you mostly heard concerns about the industry’s underlying economics in newspapers, blogs, social media posts, and podcasts, and that those concerns went completely unreflected in the markets. But these concerns seem now to have finally bled over into investors’ thinking.

If you want to know whether artificial intelligence is a gigantic economic bubble, don’t just take pundits’ word for it. Major investors are now moving their money to try to protect themselves from the AI bubble popping.

For an industry that we’re told is central to our collective future, the artificial intelligence (AI) industry increasingly seems to be built on a combination of artificially inflated hopes and bad accounting.

The industry’s critics have been raising concerns about its finances for a while: the fact that most of its flagship firms are grossly unprofitable, that they’ve had to jack up their prices to try break even (leading their business customers to pump the brakes on using their products), or that many of the eye-popping investment announcements that are meant to show demand for AI is strong have actually been circular financing — meaning different AI firms cycling money to and from each other.

But none of it has seemed to slow the industry’s boom or the relentless hype machine behind it. Until now, anyway. It used to be that you mostly heard concerns about the industry’s underlying economics in newspapers, blogs, social media posts, and podcasts, and that those concerns went completely unreflected in the markets. But these concerns seem now to have finally bled over into investors’ thinking.

The scientific literature can be viewed as an "information commons:" an intangible resource that "no one owns and is shared by everyone." There are well-established economic and political frameworks for understanding such commons, emerging from the history of agricultural common lands found in places like preindustrial England. This article provides a primer on the history and these frameworks, and considers a key difference between the information commons and the fields of yore: while information commons are robust and immensely valuable

some can be said to rank among humanity's greatest achievements

the English agricultural commons no longer meaningfully exist. The latter are gone not because of the well-known "tragedy of the commons," but rather a phenomenon known as the enclosure movement (~1600--1800) that transformed the common lands into private property. Many observers, then and now, judge enclosure to have been theft at a societal scale. This article argues that artificial intelligence (AI) provides precisely the tools needed to enable a previously-infeasible enclosure of the information commons. Although AI-enabled enclosure does not operate identically to physical enclosure, it shares the key features of turning the commons into private wealth and undermining the social systems that support them (via "slop spam"). The concepts presented in this article can provide a scholarly basis for interrogating the foreboding feeling that AI may represent not just a smash-and-grab, but an attack upon a whole way of life.

This year has seen the resolution of major suits against tech giants Alphabet and Meta, both of which were found liable for serious lawbreaking. Yet the penalties imposed on the corporations are laughably inadequate to restrain their power.

When the government first filed major antitrust lawsuits targeting Big Tech back in 2020, many people were optimistic that the long-standing practice of public legal action against monopolistic companies could rein in these economy-dominating corporations.

But as these pages have covered, this “techlash” has come to little. Antitrust law has conformed to its castrated character of recent decades, with the state unable to bring itself to seriously restrain, let alone break up, the giant companies even after they were ruled to be full monopolies just months before.

Recently, when it comes to enforcing the law against the tech giants, new lows have been reached.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/54365344

Apple is deeply embedded in Israel, says Tariq Ra'ouf, a Palestinian writer who worked for more than a decade in Apple retail before he was fired in 2024 for speaking out against the company's silence on Gaza. He joins Rania Khalek and Zoe Alexandra to break down Apple's ties to Tel Aviv, including its extensive R&D centers in Israel and its $2 billion purchase of an AI startup founded by Unit 8200 veterans. He also explains the systemic discipline faced by pro-Palestine Apple workers — fired for wearing keffiyehs while the company matched employee donations to Friends of the IDF — and warns that having Israeli military intelligence veterans integrated into the supply chain of the world's most popular devices should terrify every consumer.

Ra'ouf also lays out how the minerals in your iPhone connect the company to genocide in Congo, why organizers are calling for pickets at Apple stores on launch day – and how customers and workers can and should get involved.

The scientific literature can be viewed as an "information commons:" an intangible resource that "no one owns and is shared by everyone." There are well-established economic and political frameworks for understanding such commons, emerging from the history of agricultural common lands found in places like preindustrial England. This article provides a primer on the history and these frameworks, and considers a key difference between the information commons and the fields of yore: while information commons are robust and immensely valuable

some can be said to rank among humanity's greatest achievements

the English agricultural commons no longer meaningfully exist. The latter are gone not because of the well-known "tragedy of the commons," but rather a phenomenon known as the enclosure movement (~1600--1800) that transformed the common lands into private property. Many observers, then and now, judge enclosure to have been theft at a societal scale. This article argues that artificial intelligence (AI) provides precisely the tools needed to enable a previously-infeasible enclosure of the information commons. Although AI-enabled enclosure does not operate identically to physical enclosure, it shares the key features of turning the commons into private wealth and undermining the social systems that support them (via "slop spam"). The concepts presented in this article can provide a scholarly basis for interrogating the foreboding feeling that AI may represent not just a smash-and-grab, but an attack upon a whole way of life.

This year has seen the resolution of major suits against tech giants Alphabet and Meta, both of which were found liable for serious lawbreaking. Yet the penalties imposed on the corporations are laughably inadequate to restrain their power.

When the government first filed major antitrust lawsuits targeting Big Tech back in 2020, many people were optimistic that the long-standing practice of public legal action against monopolistic companies could rein in these economy-dominating corporations.

But as these pages have covered, this “techlash” has come to little. Antitrust law has conformed to its castrated character of recent decades, with the state unable to bring itself to seriously restrain, let alone break up, the giant companies even after they were ruled to be full monopolies just months before.

Recently, when it comes to enforcing the law against the tech giants, new lows have been reached.

Apple is deeply embedded in Israel, says Tariq Ra'ouf, a Palestinian writer who worked for more than a decade in Apple retail before he was fired in 2024 for speaking out against the company's silence on Gaza. He joins Rania Khalek and Zoe Alexandra to break down Apple's ties to Tel Aviv, including its extensive R&D centers in Israel and its $2 billion purchase of an AI startup founded by Unit 8200 veterans. He also explains the systemic discipline faced by pro-Palestine Apple workers — fired for wearing keffiyehs while the company matched employee donations to Friends of the IDF — and warns that having Israeli military intelligence veterans integrated into the supply chain of the world's most popular devices should terrify every consumer.

Ra'ouf also lays out how the minerals in your iPhone connect the company to genocide in Congo, why organizers are calling for pickets at Apple stores on launch day – and how customers and workers can and should get involved.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/54365344

Apple is deeply embedded in Israel, says Tariq Ra'ouf, a Palestinian writer who worked for more than a decade in Apple retail before he was fired in 2024 for speaking out against the company's silence on Gaza. He joins Rania Khalek and Zoe Alexandra to break down Apple's ties to Tel Aviv, including its extensive R&D centers in Israel and its $2 billion purchase of an AI startup founded by Unit 8200 veterans. He also explains the systemic discipline faced by pro-Palestine Apple workers — fired for wearing keffiyehs while the company matched employee donations to Friends of the IDF — and warns that having Israeli military intelligence veterans integrated into the supply chain of the world's most popular devices should terrify every consumer.

Ra'ouf also lays out how the minerals in your iPhone connect the company to genocide in Congo, why organizers are calling for pickets at Apple stores on launch day – and how customers and workers can and should get involved.

Like a cult classic movie, Godot 4 has only gotten better with age. The first few releases focused on stability, granting the engine a rock-solid foundation that could be safely and easily iterated upon. Gradually, this has shifted more towards polish and quality-of-life, peaking in Godot 4.6 giving developers the tools to put them and their workflow first.

This brings us to Godot 4.7. With 3 years under its belt, the 4.7 Director’s Cut offers colors of never-before-reached intensity. HDR output radiates bold and brilliant new hues, allowing your projects to shine like never before. Inject some juice to your UI without breaking a sweat using the new Control offset transforms. Find the plugin that will help push your game even further with the new Asset Store, bask in the ease of creation with standalone Android exporting and publishing, and helm a bevy of new features to eliminate any remaining friction between you and your vision.