The term "Artificial Intelligence" is actually a perfectly cromulent word to be using for stuff like LLMs. This is one of those rare situations where a technical term of art is being used in pop culture in the correct way.
The term "Artificial Intelligence" is an umbrella term for a wide range of algorithms and techniques that has been in use by the scientific and engineering communities for over half a century. The term was brought into use by the Dartmouth workshop in 1956.
Frankly, whatever insanity it takes to peel MAGA away from Trump is fine by me at this point.
Guilty until proven innocent, I guess?
Ask them why God wants to cover up the Epstein files.
Perhaps in absolute terms.
We don't know if this is the case
Right. That's exactly what I've been saying.
Quite possibly. Not all breaches of contract are a result of corruption, but some could be, sure.
But that's not my point. My point is that this isn't relevant to SpaceX investing its money in some other company. It's SpaceX money, not "government" money. They can waste it on stupid hitlerbots if they want to.
At that point the problem then isn't "SpaceX is investing in Grok AI", it's "SpaceX is violating its contract with NASA by not doing the work it's been paid to do."
That would indeed be a problem, if true. But it's a completely different problem.
Most roadwork contractors are spending most of the money doing job and paying employees, not funneling it to an neonazi AI.
Sure, and that's their choice. It's their money to invest, be they good investments or bad ones.
I'm not saying that funnelling money into xAI is a good idea. I happen to think it's a terrible idea, I would much rather that SpaceX not do that. But it's not corruption.
SpaceX has taken a ton of money from taxpayers, (at the expense of NASA,) but hasn't been making good progress on the Artemis program, for example.
It's got a milestone-based contract with NASA for Artemis. It's paid to achieve milestones. So if it hasn't been making good progress it isn't getting paid.
If you think the contract could be better written then maybe that's on NASA to do a better job negotiating. It has nothing to do with Grok one way or the other.
It's almost as if this were a community where we discussed new technologies that are just emerging and haven't become well-established yet.
SpaceX is a private company, once it has been paid money that money is SpaceX's and is not taxpayer money any more. It's been spent. If the government hired a contractor to build a road, paid them to do so, and then the contractor took the money they'd been paid and invested it in some other company that the contractor owned, is that "corruption?"
Insert standard disclaimer here; Elon Musk is a terrible person and he's made a lot of terrible decisions, etc. and so forth. It's not going to stop me from being called a bootlicker, not sure why I bother inserting it.
They're the ones who are putting the open-source base models out in the first place. If I write a program myself and release it as open source, I have every right to subsequently release a closed-source version. But I can't rescind the license on the version I released previously (any open source license with a clause allowing that should be treated with immense suspicion) so anyone else can keep building on that version if they want.