Can't the facility just as well try to nuke the repository and every remote it can push force to? The thing is that with prompt injection being a thing, if the automation chain can access arbitrary remote resources, the initial surface can be extremely tiny initially, once it's turned into an infiltrated agent, opening the doors from within is almost a garantee.

Or am I missing something?

We are entering the “Trough of disillusionment.” These hype cycles are very predictable. GPT-5 being panned as a disappointment after endless hype may go down as GenAI’s “jump the shark” moment.

It’s all fun and games until the bean counters start asking for evidence of return on investment. GenAI folks better buckle up. Bumps ahead. The smart folks are already quietly preparing for a shift to ride the next hype wave up while others ride this train to the trough’s bottom.

Cue a bunch of increasingly desperate puff PR trying to show this stuff returns value.

> Donald perceives colleges as bastions of wokeness.

Is he wrong?

imagine comparing management at a small research lab to a multi-national corporation. Such unfounded hubris.

it was an outlier then and it’s an outlier now

Very interesting approach and perhaps a good step towards transliteration and translation of cuneiform tablets. Code and links for paper at https://github.com/TAU-VAILab/ProtoSnap/tree/main

Venture capitalists favor crypto projects because they enable significantly faster risk offloading compared to traditional investments, where 7-10 year holding periods are standard.

With crypto, the VCs can sell the majority of their tokens after brief lockup period, capitalizing on purely narrative-driven speculative valuations that almost always disconnect from the actual reality, let alone fundamentals.

Crypto VC perfectly embodies the Greater Fool Theory. The VCs profit by selling to later buyers motivated more by speculative momentum than intrinsic value. The joke being that VC involvement in a project is often the only thing even driving that momentum.

This combination of compressed liquidity timelines, minimal regulatory oversight, and a glut of retail investors who have FOMO from seeing their friends 100x or even 1000x, creates an ideal environment for VCs to systematically transfer risk to less sophisticated market participants at often insane valuations.

> I wonder whether somebody from the opposing side can provide a reasonable logical explanation for the Musk/Trump actions.

i am not on trump's side (i hate trump; i am neutral on musk except these past few weeks i think he's said -- but not yet really done -- things that are a bit beyond the pale, even for him) but i think this will be positive for American science.

as i posted in sibling comment:

> to steelman the issue: what if there was overinvestment in science? as in we chased money after talent that didnt exist, or was mismatched to the difficulty of the available and fundable open questions.

two things: you'd expect a lot of fraud and misallocated science to have been recently uncovered (Reproducibility crisis, amyloid hypothesis scandals e.g.).

after the cuts, you would expect the quantity of science to go down, but the quality to go up.

i guess technically this isn't a logocal explanation since i dont think trump is doing this in good faith but i think the US might be better off in the end.