Browse Comments — Raw (as collected)

Mark Wagner 😎 📈 #Bentley #Asset #Management 💥 #BAM #Alert: 📢 MU, SNDK and DRAM are the definitive global AI memory-chip leaders: 💎 Micron Technology (MU) topped a $1 trillion market value for the first time on Tuesday as shares popped over 20%, driven by insatiable global artificial intelligence demand for memory chips. The stock surge came as UBS nearly #tripled its price target on the stock from $535 to $1,625 a share, citing "exponential growth and longer-term contract agreement opportunities with partially fixed pricing". Full details: cnb.cx/4uArkXO

This is pretty much true of every for-profit company, and some non-profits, too. It's obviously true of oil companies, pharma, chemical/pesticide/herbicide companies, manufacturers, lumber, mining, etc. So much harm has been caused before regulation begins, and they continue to unleash powerful forces, allowing them to remain largely unrestrained. Nothing's changing. Certainly nothing's changing due to these comments.

Jeffrey Fleischer - enterprise buyers have a different governance problem they need to address first. Specifically, the principle of shareholder supremacy.Put succinctly, no company can be trusted to govern itself.Precisely because the profit motive and stakeholder impact will always come into conflict at some point - if not continuously.

Rand Strauss There is no alignment problem for LLM tech, so long as it makes money.

Evan Hunter Evan the nuclear analogy lands hard because it's exact. We didn't let private companies self-regulate fissile material and call it innovation. The distinction that made nuclear different was that governments understood the catastrophic downside before widespread deployment — not after. The governance infrastructure preceded the technology at scale. AI governance is running in reverse. The technology is deployed at scale while the governance infrastructure is still being argued about in congressional hearings. Your point about C-suite and board accountability preceding vendor accountability is right — the problem is most boards don't yet have the technical literacy to ask the right questions. Which creates a gap that vendors fill with their own risk framing. The Vatican moment matters because it's one of the architects saying publicly that the internal accountability structure is insufficient. That's the signal boards should be acting on right now.

Matthew P. Your point about AI governance running in reverse is well made. Thank you for clarifying. I would push back on the idea that the potential catastrophic downside risk inherent to AI was well understood prior to its use at-scale (by DARPA, The Pentagon, Science Fiction writers, Hollywood, etc). However, enough decision makers (public and private) were sold on the following: 1) massive upside of digital assistants (productivity, prosperity, innovation) 2) long time-horizon on generative ai, wide-spread adoption, and digital sentience and so here we are. I hope that boards will act on that signal, but am not yet optimistic. A lot of big egos are going to have to walk back pet projects and big promises to Constituents, Congress, and Wall Street, and sadly, that seems unlikely to be a swift process absent tight regulation - which, will almost certainly be viewed as reactionary and overly-restrictive.

Ha.