That's their marketing pitch, but revealed preferences are stronger signals than stated ones.

Its a true marvel to barely have a single nine of uptime in 2026

To someone unfamiliar with anime, anime characters look extremely similar.

I'm unfamiliar with anime, and I disagree. (Not that I'll be able to provide examples.) There's a generic anime look, but there are a lot of things that don't look like the generic anime look.

Just looked up some names I've heard people mention: The My Hero Academia character art is very visually distinct from OG Pokémon, which is very different to the Sun & Moon version of Ash Ketchum.

I walk past something resembling a claw machine arcade on my commute, and I've noticed that although every month the prizes in the window swap around, the anime woman figurine and the mascot plush always looks quite similar to the one from the last month.

I _think_ they're from different series, but aesthetically it's impossible for me to figure out one from the other. Trends are still changing, but I think our design sensibilities have definitely found a place to plateau.

Oh, well if they said so, there's no problem.

Off the top of my head, peanut butter, black hole, and amusement park are concepts that can't be easily intuited by just combining the two singular terms, but I also wouldn't consider them as phrases.

"Peanut butter" would be dealt with by including a reference under the "butter" entry. Something like:

'N, culinary. A paste made of ground up nuts, sometimes with additional oils and other ingredients. E.g. "peanut butter", "almond butter".'

"Amusement park", same. Falls very much under the "place of recreation" definition of "park".

"Black hole" is maybe a bit different, because it's a scientific term - and certainly in a science dictionary would be included as a two-word item - but, for consistency, in a regular dictionary should be handled identically to the above, with a note on the word "hole".

While including noun phrases as singular entities in a word game is entirely appropriate, I don't think the OP has formed a rigorous definition of the concept that they are trying to describe. I agree with the other comment which suggests that they need some instruction / practice using a dictionary.

The word splitting in English is an accident of history, not a linguistic reality though. This is hilariously obvious to Swedish speakers :P

Well, it's a linguistic reality - all of which are accidents of history - which absolutely isn't to say it reflects anything definitive about reality reality. My point is that English has a straightforward way of dealing with this (admittedly arbitrary) case, which OP either ignores or doesn't understand, and instead adds unnecessary categorical complication.

It's not a linguistic reality in spoken English is what I meant. We Swedish speakers can hear it when English speakers pronounce the space and when they don't, because we're super sensitive to that difference because our language cares. We can easily flip from one state to the other and repeat the word/words back and English speakers will instantly hear that it sounds weird and wrong but often they don't understand why.

English spelling does NOT line up with pronounced English when it comes to what we in Swedish calls "särskrivning" which is a word that roughly means "separateness writing".

Oh! Yeah, I understand what you mean. "Black hole" (the astronomical entity) and "black hole" (a hole that is black) are said differently, but it takes a good ear, and probably some training, for English speakers to notice. How interesting that speakers of (some) other languages detect that so "automatically"! There also are dialectical complications - some speakers tend to run words together more than others, or maybe use tone / stress rather than syllabic modifications to mark the changes - and I'd be interested to know the extent to which you notice those structures as well?

Nevertheless, dictionaries (conventional ones, at least) concern themselves with written rather than spoken English, so I think my point stands. :-)

The difference being that AI's marketing has been significantly more prevalent than any early computing efforts.

Not to mention the investment is on another level. We've got companies with valuations in the hundred-billions talking about raising trillions to buy all of the computers in the world, before establishing whether they can even turn a profit, nevermind upend the economy.

I wonder how many actually beneficial projects will not be financed by investors too scared to try anything risky after the AI buble crashes and burns to the ground. :P

More than the last few crashes. Same players on different teams.

The fact that the companies that have already shoveled billions of dollars at this are continuing to do so is equally consistent with AI improvement and adoption stalling as it is with infinite improvement and widespread adoption. Yes, it’s irrational to chase sunk costs - but unlike the VC funds that backed Uber and its competition, may of the players in this game are exposed to public markets, which are not known for being rigorously logical. If you pull back on your AI investments, the markets will punish you - probably vigorously - and if your only concern is the value of your stock options, it is entirely rational for you to act in a way that keeps the market from punishing their value. We’re 3 years in without showing any ROI, and who’s to say we can’t get 3 or 5 or 10 more? Plenty of time to cash out before the eventual reckoning.

> If you pull back on your AI investments, the markets will punish you - probably vigorously

quite the opposite is happening as evidenced from last earnings reports…

There is definitely growing hesitancy in the market, but pulling back at this juncture could set off a full-on race to the bottom, because it would disprove the original point (“all the smart tech companies are all-in, so there must be profit at the end of the tunnel”). Right now, they can point to the skeptics as bears or doomers or whatever. The first big tech company to drop its capex will pierce the aura of invincibility and make the moderate retreat from the exuberant highs of late 2025 look like a blip on the radar.

I'd maybe think twice about assuming Meta knows what they're doing after they just pissed $75 billion up the wall on a Metaverse dream that went nowhere.

Pissed it away, but Zuckerberg is richer than ever and so are his stockholders it seems. I can’t imagine doing it, but also can’t imagine running Meta.

if it was just Meta perhaps I’d think twice but it is not just Meta, it is all of them

"The lemmings can't be wrong, they're all doing it". I think you're overlooking the incentive structures here.

I am certainly not saying that this can’t all come crashing down for the big boys, surely it can. I just am putting a little more weight on them than on people on the internet and doomsdayers hunting for clicks is all

I just keep thinking about SGI and, to an extent, Sun. Couple missteps and a couple innovations in the commodity direction and it will start having a negative effect.

This seems false to me. Commodore and Apple were blitzing every advertising medium and especially TV ads in the early 1980s.

Worryingly revisionist to compare 1980s media advertising budgets to what's going on now (even if they were 'high' for the time).

Atari too

And early (electronic) computing paid immediate dividends, with the bletchley park code breakers

More than Apple, on relative scale. Personally I don’t think that.

AI is not an exoskeleton, it's a pretzel: It only tastes good if you douse it in lye.

it's a dry scone

Hanlon's razor is a farce. There are no unintentional acts, the drunk driver takes off because he thinks he has to get back as fast as possible, the sick man invokes AI to write his article because he must hit the deadline.

There are lots of unintentional acts, simply because fully predicting all the consequences of ones actions is genuinely difficult. I agree that drunk driving is not one; those consequences are well-known.