Why would you say that? The article was basically a hit piece on the guy. "We can trust you" was a quote from an associate, as you surely remember from when you read the whole article.
Messaging is attention-weighted. It always has been, but the exploitation of this fact has been on the rise and in 2026 everyone should know it and internalize the consequences: if you signal boost statement A and bury nuance B, you are promoting statement A, flat out, completely independent of what B brings to the table.
"We can trust you now" has quotations marks in the title. That means a verbatim quote from a source. Sure, messaging should be clear, but we must expect basic reading comprehension and jornalistic literacy from people that participate in a place like a Computer Science forum, while reading The Wall Street Journal.
LLMs are already pretty general. They've got the multimodal ones, and aren't they using some sort of language-action-model to drive cars now? Who is to say AGI doesn't already exist?
I think LLMs are at least name-worthy given that they're artificial and somewhat smart in a generality of domains. Albeit the "smartness" comes from training in a massive corpus of text in those domains. So maybe it's really a specific intelegence but for so many specific tasks it seems general.
At some point you have to throw in the towel when these things are going to be walking and talking around us. Some people move the goalposts of "AGI" to mean that the machine totally emulates a person. Including curiosity and creativity, of which these models are currently lacking.
But why should it? In genesis, it's said that god created man after its own image. I have to assume this implies we inherit god's mental attributes (curiosity, creativity, etc.) rather than its physical attributes.
When compared to the nascent asian cultural imperialism, I'd rather have american media, to be honest. Over here in the global south, Hollywood was a pretty good influence compared with what I see around the anime/Kpop crew.
There is a whole world inside America. You can say that about every single country on Earth, but not every country on Earth produced The Godfather, Citizen Kane and Toy Story 2.
Hollywood produced some of the most influential pieces of art of the last century and it permeated global culture in a way only comparable to Renaissance-era Florence. Even if your simplistic take stained by marxist propaganda is true, you shouldn't just casually dismiss the labor of hundreds of thousands of artists and technicians over a century simply because you've become jaded by Marvel slop.
> some of the most influential pieces of art of the last century and it permeated global culture in a way only comparable to Renaissance-era Florence
Not just comparable; easily greater than. US movie business has easily been more influential than Romanticism. That said... TFA makes undeniably valid points:
"Morale has been battered by tens of thousands of layoffs, the exodus of production from California to lower-cost territories, the waning cultural relevance of cinema versus social media, declining attendance at theater chains and fears that artificial intelligence will displace traditional moviemaking.
[...] this year’s Oscar race has been overshadowed by rival Paramount Skydance Corp.’s $110 billion deal to buy the company. It’s the third time Warner Bros. has been sold in less than a decade.
[...] Hollywood’s anxiety — the local industry’s challenges are often compared to the decline of automaking in Detroit — isn’t misplaced. The crisis has grown to such magnitude that last year, California doubled the annual assistance it gives to film and TV productions to $750 million to stop them from fleeing the state."
Influential? Yes. Was that influence for the betterment of humanity? I’m not sure. Beyond the slop many of the classics were deeply racist and built on immoral exploitation. Yes all those artists did great work but they did it in terrible conditions for where near enough pay.
Take apocalypse now: a great piece of art. Was it worth the pain and suffering of its production? Absolutely not.
Terrible historical practices/immoral productions shouldn't the reason alone for such dismissal. Every industry had it's fair share of terrible things. Sometimes, we learn to do better. There are also enough ongoing things to be worried about.
Hollywood should implode and hopefully the art form will resurrect for the better. But for me the primary reason is that they don't live up to what they are supposed to do. Creating good art.
The greed is the same for all players and industries. I don't see why hollywood's situation is different. They just failed to adapt to new conditions.
I agree that the good stuff is just a result of shotgunning, for every great movie, there are 100 that are forgettable. But we have the habit of concentrating power in one place, so I have no clue how it could be otherwise. Sure youtube is an alternative with myriad of independent creators, but it produced totally different outcomes.
In Capitalism, Capital holders are in charge of what gets resources.
If you want to make something non-trivial, you need investment from a capital holder. Even Indie movies spend tons of effort on funding and investment and trying to have cashflow to make something happen.
The death of hollywood does not change this reality, it simply changes which capital holders you must seek patronage from.
Hollywood was sex pests and morons sure, but so are the rest of the Capital holders we have. Big movies will still be beholden to the rich, because the rich are who have capital.
The shape of the system hasn't changed, only the names of the people at the top.
> I’m not sure. Beyond the slop many of the classics were deeply racist and built on immoral exploitation. Yes all those artists did great work but they did it in terrible conditions for where near enough pay.
This is so naive, I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are. Hollywood is the first window into the western way of life for many third worlders. And if you knew how the third world really is, they are much more racist, much more primitive than the West.
In reality, Hollywood opens up people into western culture - openness, rationality and so on.
Just trying to understand your point here- so non-westerners are primitive and irrational, unlike the West, led by Donald Trump, champion of rational, elevated discourse?
He's right. Moral self-righteousness aside, Hollywood was a window for many of us in "developing countries" to a better world. Yeah, it was an idealized version of reality, but that's how many of us discovered science, athleticism or sexual freedom, for example.
I don't disagree that you got a window into American values, I just don't agree that proximity to American values is the same as civilization versus primitivism.
Agreed. To say "good riddance" to Hollywood scares me. Like we are giving up and accepting generated slop and influencers from now on. There's a lot of bad movies, but just as you said, very few mediums have thusly pierced through across cultures and societies quite like Hollywood.
>very few mediums have thusly pierced through across cultures and societies quite like Hollywood
This is laughable if you look at video games and music EVEN if you ignore everything american. Not mention Asia from Bollywood to Kpop to anime to HK cinema.
The modern age of video games, that's probably correct. And you're right, music probably compares at some level, especially given that it predates cinema. I wonder if ancient theater (Shakespeare, et al) would qualify. Probably.
I did, for the record, say "very few mediums", so as to allow room for music or video games, perhaps. I still stand by the overall statement that losing Hollywood would mark some sort of tragedy (but maybe not universally).
Also, I wouldn't go as far to say that losing what we know of in current celebrity status by certain actors would be missed. Though influencers are probably more grotesque to some (including myself).
That's the official name. The preferred one by the government is Dept of War. [1]
As the original poster said:
> If you're going to call people stupid or immature for making certain decisions, maybe take a couple minutes to find out who made the decisions, and/or what the history of those and similar changes has been.
Well I think the operative question here is “preferred by who?”. The current government prefers it. Voters do not. None of us are obligated to indulge the “secondary title” nonsense in an executive order clearly designed to sidestep the actual legal process for a name change.
Aesthetics are more important for some people than The 0.01% percent chance of an obscure, 8 year old security annomaly. I think those computers look horrible, but they are harmless.
Ignore the haters, sure. But don't ignore the well argumented criticism that you're getting from an overwhelming majority of your peers, as it's happening right now.
>can't wait to see where it goes!
Fall into this toxic positivity nonsense at your own peril.
Gatekeeper blocks the app immediately. You'll see either "TUIStudio cannot be opened because it is from an unidentified developer" or "TUIStudio is damaged and can't be opened" on newer macOS after quarantine flags the binary.
To get past it: right-click the .app → Open → Open anyway — or go to System Settings → Privacy & Security → "Open Anyway".
A trusting, highly positive person could really be taken advantage of here.
Yeah that's not what I meant. When you click OK on this thing, you're saying "I understand Apple hasn't vetted this application, and it could do unpleasant things to my computer"
You seem to be implicitly trusting the creator of the app, which is a mistake.
Well yes, ideally any code running on macos will have paid the requisite fees to Apple so the scary message goes away.
That being said, I'm quite confident it would be possible to both get that assurance and have the software behave in ways that are unexpected or undesirable.
Furthermore, it does appear to be open source, so you could always download a copy from github and go over the code line-by-line if you desire.
My point was that, at the point where these devs seem to be at, it's quite innocuous that they haven't paid the apple tax yet.
reply