The Internet that you're posting on was built on top of a military network intended to provide redundant communication in the event of a global thermonuclear war.

Responding to this part alone: that's not actually true.
The intent of arpanet, the direct predecessor to the Internet, was to make it easier for universities to use high powered computer resources located at national laboratories, as well as making it easier to distribute software updates. The person who initially pushed for it's creation wanted "an electronic commons open to all, 'the main and essential medium of informational interaction for governments, institutions, corporations, and individuals '". They secured funding for the initial computer science labratories, os research that underpin everything, and the foundation for the "INTERgalactic NETwork".

Arpa was, at the time, the advanced research project agency. They were under the DoD, but they filled a role closer to the NSF today.

In designing the system they referenced work done by people who were studying robust communication networks. At the time that meant the phone system and nuclear weapons. The research, however, was applicable to any unstable network, and so had particular interest to them because computers had terrible reliability and they wanted to not have to call people if they discovered they had turned off a computer halfway between New York and LA.

The closest thing it has to a cold war military objective is to help us win the research race and spite the Soviets. It can withstand a nuclear attack, but that's just because that's the easiest way to make it survive a farmer with a backhoe accidentally hitting a wire.

The thing is they're currently trying to sell as a business oriented tool. They're not going to make money off of individuals.
Google is positioned to come closest because they're already an advertising company.

If you think their focus isn't businesses then you're not paying attention to their strategy. The pressure to drive profitability is increasing as their business customers are reporting that investment in AI capabilities isn't converting into measurable financial returns. That's the type of news that makes investors wary.

If you operate at a loss, you need to be providing a value to your customers that you can leverage. You need more than high interest, you also need demonstrable utility.

There have also been plenty of times that a new technology just ... Didn't pan out. This specifically happens with AI technology, and we even have a term for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter The tech won't go away, it'll just be market infeasible for a while until it's no longer called AI and is just a feature in some other product.

Take your comment and apply it to someone marketing "spell check as a service".

This is capitalism working exactly as intended. People with capital are using it to guide businesses to make them more money.

The mistake is thinking that capitalism is motivated by a healthy economy, when the theory is that if everyone is aggressively selfish then the economy will naturally become healthy and efficient.

The people making money are counting on making their money as investors keep pumping more in. The investors are all aiming to be the last one to sell before the crash. Russian roulette venture capitalism. (In some cases they think the economy will tolerate 1-2 companies and they're aiming to buy a controlling interest in a company worth 2% current value after the correction, and in others they just have so much money that a few billion is a minor bet - BlackRock comes to mind, with more than $10 trillion to invest)

If you look at 2008, we had a similar-ish situation with a major portion of the economy being invested in mortgage based investments.

We had premature twins with some common, usually benign side effects. The "emergency C-section" and "dual booking in the NICU for a month" was just a whole thing.

If it weren't for having good insurance it would have been financially unrecoverable.

When two people love each other very much, they can decide they want to go to a series of various doctors appointments where the mommy gets given new and exciting risk factors and complications and the other desperately tries to keep track of the paperwork.
Then they have one final expensive doctors appointment and take home their brand new legal liability and tax exception, get ready for all of their new doctors appointments where everyone tries to sort the paperwork, skip sleeping for the next 6-36 months.
Thanks to evolutionary trickery they will ultimately rate this experience quite highly, on average.

The secret is that it was filmed on film and the originals were still around. So they were able to just reprocess the original film with higher resolution and such.
Other shows were either digital, or filmed on film but the only thing saved was the broadcast transfer.

It's typically considered bad form to tell someone to Google your point for you instead of actually explaining your point yourself.
You're clearly trying to convince people of something. Actually do that instead of telling people keywords that mean something to you.

They run a car into something that only crunches a corner. Simulates a tree, telephone pole, or guard rail collision.
Uneven force application is much harder to safely accommodate, and it's also a more representative crash test, since more crashes happen in that manner than full width head-on collisions.

That's pretty fair. I know the cameras can be more effective, particularly in situations where the driver may be using lane centering or something, but I'm not sure I could be fully comfortable regardless.

Fatigue detection is a real thing that doesn't use the type of AI that people think of when they hear that word today most often. It's not language based but instead it's able to recognize faces and posture, tell where your attention is focused, and recognize signs of fatigue like head drop, eyes closing, and attention drifting from the road.
It, along with other attention based driver safety features, are real and effective and can be done on device with a computer with less power than a modern cellphone.

It is, however, at least a little creepy. It's made a lot more so by it not being disclosed upfront with disclosures and full user awareness. It should be explained by both the website, the car manual, the salesperson and the car itself exactly what it's doing and where any video data is being sent. It's probably processing the video locally and at most sending telemetry about which driver just sat down and such, but 1) you might not want that 2) unless they actually tell you that you don't know.

It's not paranoia to want an explanation and appropriate assurances, or for it to be in your control. You don't need to assume it's the worst case for that to be true. It's probably a real safety feature with a couple of quality of life features taped on so people can see it do something, since you don't really see a passive safety feature. But without actual communication you don't actually know that.

There's a big difference between training a model, running a model, and running a model at scale.

A small, self hosted setup will have lower accuracy and queries per second, and it will have a cost, but the cost will be no more than playing a videogame. You'll still have something surprisingly accurate and responsive for some tasks, like being a wiki interface or something.

Remember that some of these models can run on a standard smartphone, and all the hoopla when people found that chrome was downloading models onto people's devices.

I don't think they're arguing they need the large cut to develop features, I believe they're arguing the large cut is reflective of the added value.

In a capitalist system there's no transaction that can't be traced back to some form of exploitation. Profit is someone making more money than they put in.

There's no game marketplace that isn't looking to exploit someone.
The question isn't "is someone being exploited", it's "how severe is the exploitation" and "is the exploiter using unfair means to reduce choice".

Because we don't have a magic wand that lets us see the objective value of the services being offered we can only compare preferences and tolerable prices.

I believe their argument to be that the high margin taken by valve isn't reflective of monopolistic market practices, but a reflection of the value added by their service, and that if you were to offer a lower rate that didn't have the listed perks you would see developers showing a preference for the higher rate.