this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
1102 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

85274 readers
4175 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SalamenceFury@piefed.social 168 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Lol, they got told to fuck off for not being profitable.

bG4SjYwwmQ9Myf6.gif

[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

ngl if AI dies i hope we get more ethical models, open-weight models (mostly) solve this, but it would be cool if it was trained only on public domain.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 8 points 2 days ago

Unless the AI is going to give us a cure for cancer or something I'm not really bothered. Seriously the environmental cost is ridiculous I don't care how open weight they are they still practically need a fusion reactor in order to operate and increase the temperature of the local environment by 12°

[–] spazzman6156@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago

That's not AI dying. That's just ethical AI... Which should absolutely happen. Same for GMOs

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

IMHO I'm kinda glad it was trained on all the forum posts I made during what turned out to be the golden age of training data. Now the LLMs sound a little bit like me.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Except you can be sure they downranked the influence of the left.

And I for one don't want some clanker pretending to be me online.

[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 41 points 3 days ago (1 children)

While I love the sentiment; I'm reading this decision by S&P as just about not bending their rules. AI is not thriving fast/convincingly enough to break tradition of big finance; I don't think that makes S&P an ally. And I suspect this means they'll just be joining a bit later.

[–] cardfire@sh.itjust.works 27 points 3 days ago (1 children)

'A bit later' is really all the is required to meet the standard. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/21/tesla-isnt-a-gurantee-for-the-sp-500-even-with-year-of-profits.html

S&P Dow Jones has a history of making companies earn it, including previous Elmo ventures.

I'm not bullish on any of it, and I'm desperately trying to exit AI holdings as swiftly as I'm able, but I am deeply comforted by major indexes requiring companies demonstrate profitability or at least meaningful actual revenue beyond the self-dealing that we've seen between the IPO hopefuls.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

This stock is more fitted to nasdaq anyway, and I think they said they would bend overbackwards for them and change their rules.