ralphington

The anti-ai lab crowd is becoming increasingly cult like and putting their blinders up.

Imo, you're focusing on the anecdote, rather than the key question: who decides what is an acceptable reason?

Sorry, but your reasoning is incomplete. They could have bet millions on the negative result for each of the candidates that were listed. You aren't forced to bet on a winner, you can instead bet on everybody to lose.

You just did the tech equivalent of "not to sound racist, but..."

I looked into ZDR, it's basically a vapid claim with little to no due diligence or auditing. I expect most providers to cave with only a minimal amount of legal pressure.

Hyperbole = strong opinions? If you're stating your 'strong opinions' as fact, then you deserve the push back. If you're stating your strong opinions as strong opinions, then fair game.

It must be considered false for all tech providers unless there is a verification mechanism. There will be big money for whoever sorts that out

[citation needed]

It will scale inefficiently until efficiency breakthroughs occur, but it's really hard to predict when those breakthroughs will happen. Plan on the worst, but be ready and capable of capitalizing when it happens!

I don't have a horse in the race, but these comments are remarkably toxic. This reminds me of the RTFM epidemic on early Stack overflow.

You seem to have funded your own demise

Sorry aboot that.

What kind of database auth did you have? Wouldn't they have had to access config files or related in order to obtain your passwords, usernames, etc?

[citation needed]

They mention in the article of being able to launch objects at 3,000 MPH. That's a tad short of the typical 17,500 MPH used for low earth orbit, and that's not counting the extra Delta-V required to resist atmospheric drag.

I'm very glad that this company exists, but this article doesn't help its case very much other than "Hey look, they got a load of funding".