they're mainly sucking up to the trump administration and its tech oligarchy, but they probably do largely believe some of this nonsense.

anyway, ironically, we gave europe £8 million the other week to play with the supercomputers.

maybe I'm weird, but I do not want a robot that will, in ten years time, read too much into the twenty-odd tweets I wrote about Rory Stewart annoying me this afternoon. I expect that I'll be wholly capable of doing that myself.

decades from now, you would be better off reading about the history of crypto marketing and going to therapy if you're still that hung up on it.

this would not enlighten you, because you are not an atomised individual explainable by the excerpts of thoughts that you choose - for whatever reason - to put out into the world. you are susceptible to external influence and you can't put your brain in a status update.

obviously meant "supreme court", oops.

and still the commentariat act like Starmer is a paragon of the rule of law who just really wanted to be AG. fantasy land stuff.

an intervention premissed in part on an argument that a £30 billion or so award would undermine confidence in uk regulation. and an announcement that boosted the most exposed lender's value by 4%.

oh, and she sacked the head of the CMA for not indulging her regulatory capture.

I'm drawing some negative inferences from their position here, ngl. prepare for post office scandal part 2: electric boogaloo.

anyway, they're more broadly living on cloud cuckoo land.

the big money ticket for ai companies is ultimately going to be shoving chatbots at everyone and feasting on government contracts. to deliver these sorts of things, that the uk government is reluctant to make rules about - a fact that it claims as a selling point.

(it's mainly about high risk systems, there's also some things that are banned and some obligations regarding all systems, but)

it's not even that they disagree with the particularities afaict. labour have walked back on their pledge to legislate and are largely doing a wait-and-see thing.

Annex III.

ai is the only thing they mention in the article where they want to go their own way to attract investment. investment in, um, judicial robots with sloppy rules?

that last bit is absurd. it'll all be grand because Vance will want to punt him?

this might be because I'm paying more attention to people talking about it. but what is a chicken and what is an egg?

(I think it's both)

only slight, bc the reason it's being talked about a lot more is that it's going to get a lot worse. yay.

I can excuse bigotry, but I draw the line at unparliamentary language.