La burbuja de la IA

[Benzino Napaloni]

Sentencia histórica contra la IA: un tribunal prohíbe despedir empleados para reemplazarlos por robots o algoritmos https://share.google/b5GvXtOC1EL16301M

Puntualización: en la malvada China comunista comeniños.

El mismo sitio donde no se está buscando la quimera de la IA general y se centran en desarrollos específicos y acotados.

[sudden and sharp]

Ojo a las "puntualizaciones"...



No lo había traído porque no estoy seguro de si es cierto o no:

Los jóvenes chinos se están quedando sin hogar porque están en la lista negra del Sistema de Crédito Social. Una vez que estás en la lista negra, la cartera digital WeChat te prohíbe inmediatamente gastar tu propio dinero digital o recibir tu salario... Así que te quedas sin hogar.
https://x.com/albernap/status/2046349927052128691




No es fácil discernir hoy día. Cuidado, pues. 


Más:

1. https://www.reddit.com/r/ADVChina/comments/1sr0t9y/young_chinese_people_are_becoming_homeless/?tl=es-es

2. https://maldita.es/buloteca/claim/en-china-decenas-de-miles-de-jovenes-duermen-en-la-calle-no-por-falta-de-trabajo-sino-porque-estan-en-la-lista-negra-del-sistema-de-credito-social-alli-el-castigo-no-es-la-carcel-sino-el-bloqueo-de-wechat-pay





Ojo, y prudencia, por favor.

[Benzino Napaloni]

¿Y es mejor un sistema donde no hace falta un Sistema de Crédito Social, sino que el mismo precio ya supone la exclusión de jóvenes potencialmente compradores?

Aquí nadie está diciendo que China, o ya puestos también Putin, sean unos angelitos. Para algunas cosas son muy muy cabrones.

La diferencia que cada vez se percibe más clara entre ellos y "Occidente", es que unos piensan a largo plazo y otros creen tener la sartén por el mango y piensan que eso del largo plazo no es importante.


Recuerdo que a finales de los 40 EEUU tuvo que sacar a toda prisa el Plan Marshall cuando vio los resultados electorales del Partido Comunista de Francia e Italia.

Al ciudadano común lo primero que le preocupa es tener comida en el plato y un techo. Si el sistema en Occidente no es capaz de proveer necesidades básicas, es natural que haya tentaciones de preferir otro sistema. La cosa es si esta vez habrá otro Roosevelt que acepte hacer concesiones para evitar caer en los riesgos de la alternativa.


Y al hilo de la IA, ya saben lo que pienso. Hay dos motivos detrás de la burbuja (al menos). Uno, reemplazar el fiasco del Metaverso y que las tecnológicas americanas tengan algo con lo que vender humo y seguir financiándose. Dos, buscar una manera de amortizar puestos de trabajo y evitar que el invierno demográfico le devuelva demasiado poder al trabajador. Hay muchas empresas occidentales, no digamos ya españolas, que sólo funcionan cuando hay cincuenta desesperados en la puerta con el CV.

[pollo]

¿Y es mejor un sistema donde no hace falta un Sistema de Crédito Social, sino que el mismo precio ya supone la exclusión de jóvenes potencialmente compradores?

Aquí nadie está diciendo que China, o ya puestos también Putin, sean unos angelitos. Para algunas cosas son muy muy cabrones.

La diferencia que cada vez se percibe más clara entre ellos y "Occidente", es que unos piensan a largo plazo y otros creen tener la sartén por el mango y piensan que eso del largo plazo no es importante.


Recuerdo que a finales de los 40 EEUU tuvo que sacar a toda prisa el Plan Marshall cuando vio los resultados electorales del Partido Comunista de Francia e Italia.

Al ciudadano común lo primero que le preocupa es tener comida en el plato y un techo. Si el sistema en Occidente no es capaz de proveer necesidades básicas, es natural que haya tentaciones de preferir otro sistema. La cosa es si esta vez habrá otro Roosevelt que acepte hacer concesiones para evitar caer en los riesgos de la alternativa.


Y al hilo de la IA, ya saben lo que pienso. Hay dos motivos detrás de la burbuja (al menos). Uno, reemplazar el fiasco del Metaverso y que las tecnológicas americanas tengan algo con lo que vender humo y seguir financiándose. Dos, buscar una manera de amortizar puestos de trabajo y evitar que el invierno demográfico le devuelva demasiado poder al trabajador. Hay muchas empresas occidentales, no digamos ya españolas, que sólo funcionan cuando hay cincuenta desesperados en la puerta con el CV.

Lo de esa noticia de bloquear los pagos, no sé Rick, parece falso. Especialmente viniendo de twitter, esa fuente de verdades. Suena más bien a otro intento de convencernos de que se siguen comiendo bebés crudos cuando lo único que están haciendo es no ser subnormales como todo occidente. Sólo hay que ver quienes dirigen el cotarro.

[sudden and sharp]

¿Y es mejor un sistema donde no hace falta un Sistema de Crédito Social, sino que el mismo precio ya supone la exclusión de jóvenes potencialmente compradores?

Aquí nadie está diciendo que China, o ya puestos también Putin, sean unos angelitos. Para algunas cosas son muy muy cabrones.

La diferencia que cada vez se percibe más clara entre ellos y "Occidente", es que unos piensan a largo plazo y otros creen tener la sartén por el mango y piensan que eso del largo plazo no es importante.


Recuerdo que a finales de los 40 EEUU tuvo que sacar a toda prisa el Plan Marshall cuando vio los resultados electorales del Partido Comunista de Francia e Italia.

Al ciudadano común lo primero que le preocupa es tener comida en el plato y un techo. Si el sistema en Occidente no es capaz de proveer necesidades básicas, es natural que haya tentaciones de preferir otro sistema. La cosa es si esta vez habrá otro Roosevelt que acepte hacer concesiones para evitar caer en los riesgos de la alternativa.


Y al hilo de la IA, ya saben lo que pienso. Hay dos motivos detrás de la burbuja (al menos). Uno, reemplazar el fiasco del Metaverso y que las tecnológicas americanas tengan algo con lo que vender humo y seguir financiándose. Dos, buscar una manera de amortizar puestos de trabajo y evitar que el invierno demográfico le devuelva demasiado poder al trabajador. Hay muchas empresas occidentales, no digamos ya españolas, que sólo funcionan cuando hay cincuenta desesperados en la puerta con el CV.

Lo de esa noticia de bloquear los pagos, no sé Rick, parece falso. Especialmente viniendo de twitter, esa fuente de verdades. Suena más bien a otro intento de convencernos de que se siguen comiendo bebés crudos cuando lo único que están haciendo es no ser subnormales como todo occidente. Sólo hay que ver quienes dirigen el cotarro.

Bebés no...

Lo que os vais a tragar son vuestros prejuicios...  Amén de no pocas imbecilidades.




-----
Lo he dicho yo. Apúntamela a mí.

[muyuu]

https://rival.security/posts/mythos-discovered-a-cve-already-in-its-training-data---and-thats-still-worrying

[muyuu]

https://fortune.com/2026/05/12/lake-tahoe-data-center-49000-residents-power-source/

Nearly 50,000 Lake Tahoe residents have to find a new power source after their energy source looks to redirect lines to data centers

Catherina Gioino
May 12, 2026, 1:09 PM ET

The residents of Lake Tahoe have less than a year to find a new source of energy.

The Sierra Nevada tourist hub—home to ski resorts, lakeside casinos, and roughly 25 to 28 million annual visitors—is facing an energy crisis with a familiar culprit: the data centers powering the AI boom.

NV Energy, the Nevada utility that has supplied the bulk of Lake Tahoe’s electricity for decades, told Liberty Utilities—the small California company that services the region—that it will stop providing power after May 2027. The reason? NV Energy needs the capacity for data centers. As in: the energy supplier for the Lake Tahoe region is telling the utility company that it has less than a year to find another power source.

Northern Nevada has become one of the fastest-growing data-center corridors in the country. Google, Apple, and Microsoft have either built or are planning facilities around the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center east of Reno. The Desert Research Institute, using data from NV Energy’s 2024 Integrated Resource Plan, found that the 12 data center projects located overwhelmingly in Northern Nevada could drive 5,900 megawatts of new demand by 2033. At a regional business event last fall, NV Energy’s director of business development called the moment “unprecedented,” saying the company was eager to serve the new industrial load but that it would not “impact our existing customer base.”

But Liberty’s 49,000 California customers may already be bearing the cost. Liberty Utilities generates about 25% of its power from solar facilities it owns in Nevada. The other 75% comes from NV Energy, and that source will no longer be supplied to the region by this time next year.

“It’s like we don’t exist,” Danielle Hughes told Fortune. Hughes is a North Lake Tahoe resident, CEO of the nonprofit Tahoe Spark, and a supervisor within the California Energy Commission’s Efficiency Division.
A jurisdictional knot with no easy fix

What makes Tahoe’s crisis so difficult is that no single regulator oversees the entire chain from power generation to customer bills.

Liberty is a California investor-owned utility. Its customers live in California and pay rates approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. But Liberty’s grid sits inside NV Energy’s balancing authority, connects to NV Energy at 38 points, and relies entirely on Nevada transmission lines, according to a Liberty filing with state regulators. Liberty’s territory is a small sliver along California’s eastern border, sitting within NV Energy’s balancing zone rather than the California Independent System Operator, which coordinates the grid for virtually every other ratepayer in the state.

Building a direct connection to California’s grid would require a new transmission line west over the Sierra, a project Liberty President Eric Schwarzrock said would cost “hundreds of millions of dollars” with significant land impacts.

The CPUC approves Liberty’s rates and procurement requests, but it cannot order NV Energy to keep selling wholesale power or dictate how Nevada plans for data centers. That falls to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates interstate transmission and wholesale electricity sales. With NV Energy and Nevada regulators controlling the upstream grid, the result is a system where California sets the rules, Nevada runs the wires, federal jurisdiction applies to the wholesale market, and no single entity is accountable for the outcome.

In March 2026, Liberty asked the CPUC to authorize an expedited request for proposals for replacement energy beginning June 1, 2027. In that filing, Liberty said NV Energy had cited data centers in the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center area and northern Nevada transmission constraints, among other reasons, for ending full-requirements service.

Hughes and the Sierra Club’s Tahoe Area Group want the commission to reject that approach and instead open a full proceeding. In an April 1, 2026, letter to CPUC commissioners shared with Fortune, Sierra Club Vice Chair Tobi Tyler argued that the scale of the procurement—affecting 49,000 ratepayers dependent on an isolated, rapidly transforming grid—demands the transparency and public participation that only a formal proceeding provides. Tahoe Spark’s underlying protest states that “California does not produce a Liberty-specific forecast of demand, peak conditions, or procurement needed for numerous California communities in a high wildfire risk area.”

“You need to open a full proceeding and do a transparent process and understand what we look like in California policy, and what the long-term game is,” Hughes said. Even regulators are still sorting through the legal boundaries, she added: “They’re basically trying to decide what to do right now, or even what they legally can do.”

Even the regulators are still sorting through the legal boundaries, she added: “The procurement will have to be approved by the CPUC. They’re basically trying to decide what to do right now, or even what they legally can do.”
The data center next door

Data centers used 22% of Nevada’s electricity in 2024, and that share could rise to 35% by 2030. In NV Energy’s own 2024 resource plan, about 75% of major-project load growth is attributed to data centers, according to Sierra Club expert testimony filed with Nevada regulators and reviewed by Fortune, and most of it is concentrated in Northern Nevada—using the same system that feeds power to Lake Tahoe.

NV Energy is building Greenlink West, a 525-kV, $4.2 billion transmission line from Las Vegas to Yerington, expected online in May 2027. Schwarzrock said Liberty would be “first in the waiting line” when Greenlink opens, giving it access to a wider pool of energy providers. But that timeline matches the contract deadline exactly, leaving almost no margin for error. About 70% of the project’s costs will be borne by Southern Nevada customers.

But this is nothing new, at least according to NV Energy.

Katie Jo Collier, a spokesperson for the utility, said the transition was rooted in a longtime understanding with Liberty “well before data center load growth was a consideration,” calling it “a planned transition for many years, not a reaction to recent developments.” NV Energy sold its California electric assets to Liberty in 2009 and agreed to keep supplying power temporarily. That arrangement was extended in 2015, again in 2020, and once more in late 2025, and each time because Liberty had not yet secured an independent supply, a timeline corroborated by regulatory documents reviewed by Fortune.

But independent experts have questioned whether NV Energy’s own demand projections are reliable. In testimony filed with Nevada regulators in Oct. 2024, energy economist Rose Anderson of Synapse Energy Economics warned that NV Energy’s major-project load forecast is ‘highly uncertain’ and that existing customers could end up paying for infrastructure built to serve industrial demand that never materializes.
Rates were already climbing

The supply crisis arrives on top of an existing affordability fight. In its 2025 general rate case, Liberty originally sought a 19.1% revenue increase—about $37.51 more per month for the average residential customer, according to CPUC filings. The CPUC approved a smaller increase: 11.4%, with a 9.75% return on equity rather than Liberty’s requested 11%.

The rate case spotlighted wildfire costs, insurance premiums, and infrastructure spending in a high-risk mountain region. The CPUC decision noted Liberty’s wildfire exposure and its exclusion from California’s AB 1054 Wildfire Fund, suggesting that rising insurance costs (quoted at over $30 million alone) for small utilities could warrant future rule making.

Tahoe Spark opposed the rate-case settlement, arguing that it failed to examine the interstate wholesale power structure underlying the costs paid by California ratepayers. Hughes said the problem is not merely high rates but the way costs are allocated in a region where visitor demand, second homes, ski resorts, and development projects drive infrastructure needs that permanent residents pay for.

“We’re the cost of being redistributed onto a declining community, and that is a crisis,” Hughes said.

Hughes argues that Tahoe is treated as a wealthy vacation-home market even though its year-round residents include low-income communities and essential workers. “Even though we have low-income communities in both South Lake Tahoe and North Lake Tahoe, Kings Beach, both the Energy Commission and the California Public Utility Commission do not include us in any of their socioeconomic plans,” she said.

The basin’s government structure compounds the accountability problem. Lake Tahoe spans two states, multiple counties, one incorporated city, and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. County supervisors, state appointees, utility regulators, and resort developers all touch parts of the system, but no single body owns the whole problem. Liberty’s demand pattern illustrates how different this territory is from the rest of California: while most regional utilities peak in summer, Liberty’s demand crests around Christmas, when second-home owners arrive for ski season — driving infrastructure costs that year-round residents bear.
What happens next

Liberty has told customers that NV Energy will remain the transmission provider—the wires aren’t going anywhere. The question is who supplies the electricity that flows over them, what it costs, and whether California regulators can protect customers whose upstream grid sits outside California’s usual planning structure.

Schwarzrock said the utility plans to bid the replacement contract to “anybody and everybody,” focusing first on meeting California’s renewable energy requirements. Liberty anticipates issuing a formal RFP in summer 2026, with replacement power most likely coming from sources outside California, delivered over NV Energy’s transmission system.

Hughes said short-term replacement power is likely available from elsewhere in the West—but she’s not optimistic about what comes after. “Short term, you can commonly get good deals, but it’s unstable,” she said. “The short-term deal gets you through. But then you’re in the Western market, competing against PG&E, Southern California Edison, data centers, and mining companies. We’re 49,000 customers. We have no leverage.”

Her larger concern is that as California and Nevada move toward a more integrated Western electricity market, Tahoe’s small customer base will be increasingly exposed to competition from larger utilities and industrial buyers with far more purchasing power.

“We have no representation,” Hughes said. “It’s resource extraction.”

[pollo]

¿Y es mejor un sistema donde no hace falta un Sistema de Crédito Social, sino que el mismo precio ya supone la exclusión de jóvenes potencialmente compradores?

Aquí nadie está diciendo que China, o ya puestos también Putin, sean unos angelitos. Para algunas cosas son muy muy cabrones.

La diferencia que cada vez se percibe más clara entre ellos y "Occidente", es que unos piensan a largo plazo y otros creen tener la sartén por el mango y piensan que eso del largo plazo no es importante.


Recuerdo que a finales de los 40 EEUU tuvo que sacar a toda prisa el Plan Marshall cuando vio los resultados electorales del Partido Comunista de Francia e Italia.

Al ciudadano común lo primero que le preocupa es tener comida en el plato y un techo. Si el sistema en Occidente no es capaz de proveer necesidades básicas, es natural que haya tentaciones de preferir otro sistema. La cosa es si esta vez habrá otro Roosevelt que acepte hacer concesiones para evitar caer en los riesgos de la alternativa.


Y al hilo de la IA, ya saben lo que pienso. Hay dos motivos detrás de la burbuja (al menos). Uno, reemplazar el fiasco del Metaverso y que las tecnológicas americanas tengan algo con lo que vender humo y seguir financiándose. Dos, buscar una manera de amortizar puestos de trabajo y evitar que el invierno demográfico le devuelva demasiado poder al trabajador. Hay muchas empresas occidentales, no digamos ya españolas, que sólo funcionan cuando hay cincuenta desesperados en la puerta con el CV.

Lo de esa noticia de bloquear los pagos, no sé Rick, parece falso. Especialmente viniendo de twitter, esa fuente de verdades. Suena más bien a otro intento de convencernos de que se siguen comiendo bebés crudos cuando lo único que están haciendo es no ser subnormales como todo occidente. Sólo hay que ver quienes dirigen el cotarro.

Bebés no...

Lo que os vais a tragar son vuestros prejuicios...  Amén de no pocas imbecilidades.




-----
Lo he dicho yo. Apúntamela a mí.

A ver si vas al psiquiatra de una vez.

[muyuu]

https://x.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2054629212854624329

Saludos.

https://x.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2054655260652716149

Saludos.

[muyuu]

https://x.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2053896786142789725

Saludos.

[muyuu]

https://archive.is/oqVDm ( https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/sam-altmans-business-dealings-under-gop-scrutiny-ahead-of-openais-ipo-52c1cc4d )

Sam Altman’s Business Dealings Under GOP Scrutiny Ahead of OpenAI’s IPO

Republican-led House Oversight Committee says it is investigating, and six GOP state attorneys general are calling for SEC review after WSJ

Philip Wegmann, Amrith Ramkumar and Berber Jin


May 11, 2026 11:20 pm ET

WASHINGTON—OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s personal investments are coming under intensifying scrutiny from Republicans as the company heads for an initial public offering, with the House Oversight committee launching a probe into potential conflicts of interest and several GOP attorneys general calling for a Securities and Exchange Commission review.

The moves follow an April article in The Wall Street Journal that detailed Altman’s efforts to have OpenAI back companies he personally invested in. They coincide with a lawsuit brought by Elon Musk in which the billionaire has alleged that Altman and OpenAI manipulated him into giving tens of millions of dollars to found OpenAI as a nonprofit organization, only for them to turn the AI lab into a for-profit venture.

The House of Representatives Oversight Committee on Friday sent a letter to Altman requesting a briefing from a top executive about potential conflicts of interest and documents outlining the company’s governance practices, according to a copy the committee posted to its website Monday.

“The Committee aims to ensure that funds donated for charitable purposes are not diverted for unintended uses, such as artificially increasing the market value of other companies in which an executive or board member may hold an interest,” the House letter from Chairman James Comer (R., Ky.) says. It says the effort is part of an investigation into potential conflicts of interest involving nonprofits.

Comer supported Musk’s work on the Department of Government Efficiency last year, which included targeting nonprofits accused of fraud. 
In the Comer letter and the SEC letter, which both cite the Journal’s reporting, the Republicans argue that Altman’s deals with companies he invests in, such as nuclear-fusion firm Helion, could pose conflict-of-interest concerns because OpenAI’s involvement could boost the value of the other companies.

OpenAI board chairman Bret Taylor defended Altman in a court hearing Monday, testifying that Altman had been “forthright” and “proactive and transparent” about his involvements in other companies. Altman recused himself from recent discussions about a deal between OpenAI and Helion as well, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The comments were made during the continuing court case between Altman and Musk. OpenAI has said that Musk not only knew about the for-profit conversion plan but also supported it and asked for unilateral control.

The attorneys general wrote to SEC Chairman Paul Atkins asking him to scrutinize the potential conflicts ahead of the IPO.


The attorneys general from Florida, Montana, Nebraska, Iowa, West Virginia and Louisiana said Altman “has a history of self-dealing and serious conflicts of interest that have created significant risk for the company.” Because Altman has no direct equity in OpenAI, “his personal financial interests have only limited alignment with OpenAI’s financial performance,” the letter says.

OpenAI is expected to quickly become a member of indexes and exchange-traded funds shortly after the IPO because of its gargantuan valuation, recently around $850 billion in the private market. That is set to give many investors exposure to the company.

“Altman’s troubling conduct thus far pales in comparison to the harm that would result if he were permitted to continue this pattern after OpenAI goes public,” reads a copy of the letter viewed by the Journal. The attorneys general ask for close review of documents submitted ahead of the public listing, including the S-1, an initial registration document companies file when they go public detailing their finances and conflicts of interest. “The consequences of any self-dealing by Altman could be borne by our state pensions and individual investors, creating enormous financial risk.”

SpaceX recently acquired Musk’s xAI, a competitor to the maker of ChatGPT. Critics of Musk say he and other OpenAI rivals are trying to turn regulators and the public against the company to keep pace in the AI race.

OpenAI’s IPO is expected to be one of the largest ever. SpaceX and Anthropic, another OpenAI rival, are also expected to pursue IPOs soon.
In addition to asking OpenAI to lead an investment in Helion, Altman last summer asked rocket-maker Stoke Space if it wanted to partner with the company to build data centers in space. Altman is an investor in Stoke Space through his family office, the Journal reported.

Both Musk and Altman are allies of President Trump and have generally supported Republican efforts to adopt industry-friendly AI rules. The SEC under Atkins is bringing fewer enforcement cases targeting Wall Street’s alleged rulebreakers.
 
Perceived conflicts of interest contributed to the OpenAI board briefly ousting Altman before he was later reinstated. The letter from the attorneys general asks the SEC for more details about his ouster and any governance mechanisms to prevent his potential conflicts of interest from becoming a problem.