And a lesson in the psychology of sunk costs.

They probably did not suddenly wake up after six months and realized the Indian developers were mot getting the job done. They probably lied about how long it would take. The consultant that said they could do it in a month probably also lied about their estimate.

Now, might think I should be generous here and give them the benefit of the doubt. However I once had the chance to talk with the CTO of a major embedded consultancy about how to get those first few jobs where you really can’t be confident about any estimate, and that was the explicit and unambiguous advice he offered to me: lie. Tell them you can do it.

Once a company hires a consultant, it can take a lot of pain to make them go back to the drawing board. They do not want to admit they made a mistake hiring someone, so they will accept less than they expect… but only up to a point.

I want to see math on how a single GPU will pull down that much revenue, because that seems like a dubious outcome.

Fair, I was hand waving to make a point. “If it generates more than $1100 + (resale price * WACC) + opportunity cost from physical space/etc” would have been more accurate.

But the point is — you don’t decommission profit generators just because a competitor has a lower cost structure. You run things until it is more profitable for you to decommission them.

That all depends on if you're running your own hardware (unlikely) or renting.

You will stop being asked when you give up McDonalds. There is no other way out.

This. Leaning into touch screens and apps were the last straw for me.

Humans will give a slop machine control of a lab full of CRISPR machines because they think it might make them a dollar? It wouldn’t take Supreme Super Intelligence for that to go badly.

They don’t have to hand over control to lose control to AI. People are easily manipulated, and AI has proven itself able to manipulate people. How long until a tech is tricked or coerced into doing something dumb on a planet scale, based on intentional misinformation given by its apparently benevolent AI assistant?

This is not a rule designed to ensure compliance. It’s designed to punish anyone they choose.

Make no mistake, getting targeted by this will be severely punishing, even if the courts ultimately throw it out.

Because they lack any better signals from within the company. At several places I have worked, hiring is almost fully detached from the groups that need the workers. They never could find good candidates for our teams. This kind of disconnect is what corporate cancer looks like, and it is endemic in big business.

That might seem to be the case, right up until he gets taken to court over it.

Never presume that a thing is legal (or will not later be punished) on the basis that someone is already doing it.

You can't stop it. This is just progress.

All software that isn't delivered over client/server to thin clients is now subject to being trivially cloned.

That was never in question, even before AI. It just took more monkeys at typewriters.

Police departments are known to avoid hiring people that get high marks in school, under the principle that such individuals will become bored with the job and quit. They literally look for average people with average intelligence: C students.

Now factor in the slow decline of our educational institutions, where grade inflation has systematically diminished the credibility of a degree. I would wager that many C students today would have failed out completely 30 years ago.

In that light, it is not surprising that people are seeing ICE agents behave like brown shirts. No one in power wants those people asking any kind of hard questions about what they are being ordered to do.

Everyone wants their slice of the pie fore the music stops?