This is a valid take but at this moment, AI is not trying to solve this fundamental dynamic. But it can still accelerate the process by aggressive exploration of the solution space which cannot be done even with an army of human researchers. Many ideas can be relatively quickly verified (and discarded if needed) by proper simulation even before real world experimentation, but we don't have enough capacity to process all potential ideas. If you can build a good model for simulation and establish a robust methodologies, we can use some ideas which never had a chance before.
It's not a tooling problem. It's more of a layer of policy problems. If you realize that you cannot run a simple experimental code even in non-production environment for weeks due to 10s of privacy, security, access, process and legal issues where you gotta collect a bunch of approvals, this is critical. And the problem gets worse because the tooling is too good when it enforces. There used to be some holes and circumvention which are all gone these days. This is probably why they said "the infra is good for services but not for research".
I don't even think it's good for services. It's not like you go through cumbersome reviews/tools and then things are safe. They have insane homemade config languages and obscure systems that 99% of SWEs don't really understand but won't say it out loud. That's how they dropped cns2, and the postmortem is never going to blame the tools.
I would be more careful before assuming 5 years depreciation schedule. Currently price tags are attached to computing power, not the production cost. Computing is not getting meaningfully cheaper with newer GPUs but it only allows better scaling, which makes older hardware more relevant for many use cases. This is why A100 is still selling like hotcakes. I don't think this trend will change soon.
Apple can enjoy because it controls a significant fraction of consumer computing platform so they can simply collect tax from everyone else. This is not true for the rest of big tech. Only Google has Android but it cannot sit and enjoy because they still don't control hardware and AI is an existential problem for their search business.
There is a pretty simple yet disappointing reason. CSAM is much easier to investigate and prosecute. You got evidence, you prosecute. Almost guaranteed conviction. You can even enforce big tech to implement proactive monitoring systems.
Compared to this, CSA is much harder. Every case is different. You have to do due diligence. And it is extremely hard to proactively detect them. Careful criminals will destroy all evidence. The number of case itself is smaller. And there is a good chance to lose in the court and for prosecutors this is a clearly risky move. Good ol' criminal investigation is expensive. There is a structural reason not to prioritize them.
The whole incentive structure is broken. The only thing to fix this is external pressure, but even it does not work these days. Exposing CSA is a rare event but media needs constant, sensitive headlines so they tend to treat CSA and CSAM like the same thing. Hence external pressures do not work, and even worse those work in a wrong way. This creates a bad feedback loop.
The title is kinda misleading. The actual wording is not specific about humanoid robots but "physical AI" which encompasses every machinery that can be potentially integrated with AI, especially focused on mass manufacturing for the Korean case. Basically this project is about all physical infrastructures to automate high tech manufacturing industry.
My personal rule of thumb: I am usually okay with agents driving e2e implementations if this won't make life noticeably worse when it does not work. Some analytical code? Perfectly fine. Hobby projects? Fine, though I prefer doing a fun part myself. Refactoring production code generating 10x more revenue than my salary? You'd better be at least understanding what it does.
This is one of the reason why that law will surely be challenged and very likely invalidated by SCOTUS. Trade secret protection is a very fundamental part and if this is forced to be broken by legally compelled speech, then it needs to have very creative interpretations over judicial precedents.
99% of the server code doesn't deserve trade secret protection, and fulfilling the goal of games continuing to work doesn't require releasing the other 1%. They can keep their matchmaking algorithm secret while releasing the code that lets people straightforwardly connect to each other. They can keep most of their code secret.
What a fucked situation where a company that fails who took money from people on the premise of a service existing no longer offers that service, says it's against the first amendment to enable people to continue having access to the product they paid for.
If this only applies to new sales then there is nothing that must be broken. The developers would need to choose technologies where license allows this. Those that don't wouldn't get new sales from game developers.
It's the same as GPL and similar licenses. If you don't want to publish your source that contains trade secrets then don't incorporate GPL licensed code.
There are also already various laws which compel certain types of speech. Consider things like nutrient labels or ingredient lists.
