But they might stop it from happening again if the perpetrators are imprisoned as a result of the footage.

They might not, but there is a further defence against their lack of consideration about consequences.

It's called incarceration.

Not really related to my reply

I'm surprised explanation is necessary, but OK.

Even if the criminals don't themselves consider the presence of cameras, the cameras likely ensure they will not have freedom for too much longer.

The entire concept of a review is that it's one person's opinion.

As I see it, you're making a few mistakes in your thinking in this post:

1. You assume that the recent change is that we are close to building in space, but actually what's changed is that it's becoming clearer what might be commercially useful to build in space. Not so long ago, the best idea for commercializing space was satellites taking photos of Earth, or somehow making spacecraft for mining asteroids. Then Starlink started, and next up will be energy-intensive but high-latency distributed compute, which suits AI training well. A lot of the "exactly how" might still need to be figured out along the way, but it likely will get figured out.

2. You're assuming a space-based data center would look the same as an Earth-based data center. It definitely won't. It probably looks more like a larger scale Starlink, but with much bigger satellites due to the need for giant radiators.

3. You're assuming that different technologies (space DCs vs AVs) will progress in lock step with each other. Definitely not the case. For example, we can get wireless internet from space already, but we still don't have a robot that can give someone a haircut? The tech tree branches are mostly separate, and some explored a lot more than others.

4. Insane complexity is already something that many types of technology require. It does not preclude those things from being explored.

Good for Google Cloud, bad for Gemini = ??? for Google

Also much better than every website wanting its own 22 GB rather than the 22 GB being a shared resource.

I would very much like not to have to download 22 GB for some inference capability that is way worse than API calls both in terms of quality and speed.

I would rather pay money than seeing this thing running in my browser that only prints 5 tps on high-end consumer hardware.

Why are you pretending those are the options?

The options are:

1. 22GB per website

2. 22GB per browser

3. 0GB / No AI capabilities

By having this in Chrome they are simply ensuring that option 2 replaces option 1. You still have option 3.

No. The real options are

1. No AI

2. AI that works and is actually useful

3. AI that is slow, crappy and hallucinates all the time

I choose 1 and 2.

Fair, but actually you'd surely want your choice of those three, right?

And what's being discussed here is what the better implementation of option 3 is.

My point is that if you're going with one of the possible implementations of option 3, then 22GB per browser is objectively a lot better than 22GB per website.

Doesn't sound great, but consider how much better this is than every webpage trying to load their own models.

If it turns out useful enough I'm sure browsers will just start including it as (perhaps optional?) part of installation.

> those days seem so long gone now.

Well, Musk v OpenAI kicks off in one week from now with the objective of forcing them back to their roots. A jury will be deciding whether a nonprofit accepting $50m - $100m of donations and then discarding their mission for an IPO is OK or not. Should be interesting.

> ... because of how homogenous the internet has become...

Designs have been settling on a local maxima. If you are aware of a better hill to be climbed, please do let everyone know.