I never argued that I was in IT/Tech; I deal with investments and PE. I have nothing to do with IT or tech. My point is we, in the PE/FO sector, are going to invest in AI businesses in 24/25, not only in the “B2C market” but mainly in the B2B market and for internal applications. Whether you believe it or not, it’s gonna happen anyway.

Again, none of the people at this talk have anything to do with selling a product or pushing an agenda or whatever you think. There is no press, there is no marketing, there is no product - it was basically a meetup of private equity firms that discussed the implementation and impact of purpose-trained AI in diverse fields, which affects the business structure of the big single-family office behemoths, like an industry summit for the private equity sector regarding the future of AI and how some plan to implement it (mainly big non-public SFOs).

Sometimes people just meet to discuss strategy; no one at these talks is interested in selling you anything or buying anything - they are essentially top management and/or members of large single-family offices and other private equity firms. They are not interested in selling or marketing something to the public; they are not public companies.

It’s weird how you guys react; not everything is a conspiracy or a marketing thing. It’s pretty normal in private equity to have these closed talks about global phenomena and how to deal with it.

These talks are more to keep the industry informed. I get that you do not like it when essentially the big SFOs have a meeting where they discuss their future plans on a certain topic, but it’s pretty normal that the elite will arrange themselves to coordinate some investments. It’s essentially just the offices of the big billionaire families coming together to put heads together to discuss a topic that might influence their business structure. But, in no way is it a marketing strategy; it would, on the contrary, be negatively viewed in the public eye that big finance is already coordinating to implement AI into their strategy.

But feelings don’t change facts. My point is if the actual non public big players are looking at AI in a serious matter, then so should you.

Haha, lol, whats happening why do you hate me, just sharing an experience, an opinion?

• it’s not NVIDIA or AMD or any chip manufacturer, or someone who has a product to sell to you. Most of them are not even publicly traded but are organized in family office structures. They don’t care about the B2C market at all; they are essentially private equity firms. You guys interpret anything to fit your screwed-up vision of this world. They don’t even have a product to sell to you or me; it was a closed talk with top industry leaders and their managers where they discussed their view of AI and how they will implement purpose-trained AI into manufacturing, etc. It has nothing to do with selling to the public.

I have already said too much - just let me tell you if you think LLMs are the pinnacle of AI, you are very mistaken, and depending on your position in the market, you need to take AI into account. You can only dismiss AI if you have a position/job with no real responsibility.

So weird how you guys think everything is to sell you something or a conspiracy - this was a closed talk to discuss how the leaders in certain industries will adapt to the coming changes. They give zero cares about the B2C market, aka you as an individual.

Again, none of the people at this talk have anything to do with selling a product or pushing an agenda or whatever you think. There is no press, there is no marketing - it was basically a meetup of private equity firms that discussed the implementation and impact of purpose-trained AI in diverse fields, which affects the business structure of the big single-family office behemoths.

Hi, I don’t want to say too much, but after being invited to some closed AI talks by one of the biggest chip machine manufacturers (if you know the name, you know they don’t mess around), I can tell you AI is, in certain regards, a very powerful tool that will shape some, if not all, industries by proxy. They described it as the “internet” in the way that it will take influence on everybody’s life sooner or later, and you can either keep your finger on the pulse or get left behind. But they distinguished between the “AI” that’s floating around in the public sector vs. actual purpose-trained AI that’s not meant for public usage. Sidenote: They are also convinced the average user of a LLM is using it the “wrong” way. LLMs are only a starting point.

Also, it’s concerning; I’m pretty sure the big boys have already taken over the AI market, so I do not trust that it will be to the benefit of all of us and not only for a select group (of shareholders) that will reap the benefits.

Oh, thanks for the information sir! I forgot that I tried that option to see what would happen, now I know. xd

If I’m interpreting the CEOs Post post correctly, the severance package is only applicable if your contract gets canceled prematurely or if you are being laid off. If your contract ends and is not renewed, all obligations are fulfilled, so there is no severance package since the contract simply ends. (Timel/Project based contract). I could be wrong though. It would make sense to have project or time-based contracts - these layoffs mainly affect the “permanent employees.”

I agree — some gamers do not understand that the gaming industry is grown up now, or at least old enough to play in the big boy money league. And the big boys are not in the business to make games; they are in gaming to make business. Inherently different decision-making process.

Also, before someone buys something, someone has to sell out. So why do we always have a problem with the buyers, aka investors, whose intentions are clear but not the sellers?

Stupid question: What’s the point behind this? Is this actually financially viable for a company in the long run? Was this an attempt to get Reddit to crack down on those subs?

Isn’t this always a fight against windmills? i.e., you can’t fight a symptom without addressing the market as a whole?

1. Why do you care this much about online comments in such a niche community where only already opinionated people are?

2. Yeah, if I were a moderator and needed to go over 1000 comments in today’s climate, I would delete more than necessary just because you never know. They do not put as much thought into it as you think. It was most likely just like this:

A mod goes over comments that got reported, reads the first line of the comment, sees it has direct insulting language (the “fuck them” line), and deletes it.

No political intent or conspiracy, just a mod being a mod. Could be that there is some bias, but then you can do nothing anyway in that case; it’s just a small echo chamber then.

Hakuna Matata, my friend.

Please, you are so right - but please do not engage further with this kind of posts in the future, just report them - the OP of this post is 1 day old, most likely a bot account - Lemmy needs better moderation, and that fast, it’s getting worse and worse, day by day.

Thank you for the information sir!

Holy yes, that’s a whole lot to unpack here. I understand the situation a bit better now. What a shitty choice for an election xd

On the plus side, I understand the Argentinean memes now that pop up then and there—their game is on point. (South American/Latin American meme culture, in general, is on top of things and much more represented among all age groups.) Kudos to them, still keeping humor alive despite the situation.

RIP Argentina. I don’t know the situation that led to this, but man, that sounds real, real bad for the average Argentine people.

lol sure, some have. How many bike thieves are there in a small city of about a little more than 100k, and who is buying those stolen bikes? I imagine he has regulars he’s visiting now when a bike is stolen xd

Yes, and you are entitled to your own opinion, but that does not change the facts. No, the influence is not “what if it is there” – it is there, plain and simple. That’s not up for discussion. It’s public knowledge that Tencent owns 40%, and Tencent is a government-controlled entity. It does not matter if they “abuse/use” it actively or not. It sounds like, in your mind, influence is only relevant when you use it actively, which is not true.

I never said it was not for profit. I said you invest to gain influence, which is true by fact, not an opinion. If I buy a significant number of shares in a company, I do so because I want more than money; I want influence on decision-making. I do not think the Chinese government is only interested in monetary gains; do you think that’s their only goal?

And again, do you believe a country/government able to indoctrinate any business that wants a share of their market, like the Steam example, is only invested for monetary gains and nothing else?

Tim Sweeney can do and decide many things, but opposing the Chinese government is certainly not one. And I don’t know how you imagine influence, but having 40% of a company is something I call influence, wouldn’t you? Even if they can’t tell him how to run the business, he sure as hell will do nothing that could worsen the relationship between him and his biggest investor, aka Tencent. And who is behind Tencent? The Chinese government.

lol XD, let me tell you, if someone is financing something like that, they sure as heck expect something in exchange someday.

So, you believe a government powerful enough to make unaffiliated companies bow to their liking won’t leverage their investment?

Why do you think they invested? Just for fun?

You invest to gain influence, not to have less influence.

I get your point and understand where you’re coming from. I think you’re right from a certain perspective.

But I want to add that it doesn’t matter that they declared they want to stop shipping to Israel; if the entire trade route is affected, it’s just terrorism, plain and simple. Securing vital trade routes and sending a clear signal that this conflict won’t spiral is crucial for stability.

Also, this is an international issue (trade route security), not purely an American one. While the U.S. could handle it easily by themselves, it would lead to more significant problems and conflicts in the long run.

I just believe inclusivity is always better than exclusivity.

Interesting perspective, but these attacks were different from what they did before. I can see the argument that the Israeli government downplayed their preparedness to make Hamas’s attack more devastating than if they had taken it seriously from the beginning. This tactic could then be used to partially legitimize retaliation and the subsequent siege of Gaza.

There are too many factors at play for this to be a “normal” Hamas attack gone wrong. The scale and preplanned targets suggest it was not an “ordinary” Hamas operation.

While I usually agree that the simplest solution is often the right one, do you really believe this was more or less a “normal” attack that spiraled out of control?

Apologies for the misunderstandin of your statement. My bad.

Why do you think China, one of the main trading partners with the West, should not be expected to participate in securing a primary trading route, especially after expressing a desire to play a more proactive role in securing the Middle East?

Certainly, the recent surge in attacks stems from the Israel/Palestine conflict. While one could argue that we all bear some responsibility for reaching this point, the attacks on trading routes are carried out by a third party financially backed by another entity, mainly Iran. These attacks, though related to the conflict, involve non-direct participants, including the ships they target. This categorizes them plainly as terror attacks on a trading route, and there’s no need to let it escalate or reach a point where other uninvolved groups might be tempted to join in.

I agree; China’s best move for now would be to sit and wait, maintaining distance. It gives them more breathing room. China, especially the CCP, has its interests in mind and isn’t particularly interested in helping causes that don’t further their goals. More “chaos” in the Middle East is something CCP leaders would likely appreciate.

You meant it intensified; they existed and attacked the shipping route before this conflict escalated.

Also, many people forget the modern West uses retaliation as a tool against terrorism. Basically, if you mess with civilians, you’ll face swift and harsh consequences. The attack legitimized a retaliatory response.

That’s why it was confusing when Hamas initiated this phase with a terror attack, as Israel would invoke the retaliation card, supported by the USA. Humanitarian concerns become secondary to the objective of neutralizing or controlling Hamas. Crying for more humanity or boycotts won’t significantly change the priority list.

The best outcome Hamas could have hoped for with the attack that started this is what’s happening now: chaos, more hate, conflict, and the end of normalizing relations between the USA and some Middle Eastern states. They knew Israel would use the “9/11 card,” and the USA would allow and support it.

Just to be clear, I neither support any form of “genocide” nor take sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict. It’s odd to categorize so broadly and inclusively.

If you believe China’s reluctance to participate in these maneuvers is due to the genocide allegations, then it’s improbable, considering China isn’t known for opposing genocide, (especially against Muslim groups). Practically, what Israel is accused of aligns with China’s agenda – acquiring land, eliminating cultures, religions, and populations based on ethnicity. Just because China is more discreet doesn’t make it morally superior.

Example here: Uyghur genocide.