No, AI will not "take over the world" or "end all jobs." This is propaganda to try to usher in tech for financial gain and other goals, nothing more. I've worked in AI specifically very extensively for many years very recently, and high tech background since the end of "web 1.0." As of 2024, no businesses could create a business use case beyond the things AI is already doing (chatbots, productivity help, streamlining, data, etc.).

The tech industry uses heavy "future world" propaganda in the media to try to drive its initiatives and always has. Example: e-commerce did not "kill brick-and-mortar stores" in web 2.0 like they constantly tried to push, it just augmented it as technology does. Google Glass eyeglasses never went anywhere because people actually didn't "want to share" the way the propaganda pushed at the time, and so on.

AI is no different than the hundreds of innovations that have evolved industries. Is it disruptive? To a point. AI has been around for 20 years.

It doesn't mean AI won't do things and everyone needs to adapt to a point. But, always remember, when the tech industry says "AI will take over the world," it means it wants AI to do specific things for its own benefit like any market. This is called "seeding" in propaganda/media strategy. Don't fall for it. Learn to use AI as it is relevant to your work and you'll adapt. Very simple.

A major tech business media outlet's lead article in its email newsletter was about how "people don't want to pay for content," and that this is "upending the decades-old model" in Hollywood.

It is 2024. The tech business still doesn't know or understand media business, continues to refer to it as "content," and continues to try to lead and talk about it when it has no experience or understanding of it.

Here is the reality of the media business: Some media is premium, that gives the audience access or information the audience can't get itself, because it costs money to do so. The media outlet pays this cost for the access/information itself, then shares it for a fraction of the cost with the audience, which is the consumer. This model works when access/information is harder to get and more in demand. It is very basic business basic here.

Now, some media is not premium. This is less expensive, easier to get access to, and is not as in demand. This is the free and low-cost media. In the media business, which is not new and is actually older, much larger and much more powerful than tech industry even today, it would be things like local media and public broadcasting.

Many media outlets over time (centuries) have offered a combination of these two models, which is called a hybrid model. This is what the tech industry calls, "freemium," but it isn't new to media business.

"Media," for reference is, broadcast/cable television, print/digital media (newspapers, magazines, blogs, online media), and traditional/digital radio (aka, podcast). "Content" is what software developers refer the information/images, etc. that goes onto the software they create. Websites and apps are software.

The media and content business are two separate, different things, with different, separate business models, mechanisms, truisms, customers, etc. They aren't able to be considered the same, given this. The same applies with the software business, including internet.

The above two models - premium and not premium - are a second business basic that has existed since the dawn of the media business, now centuries ago, entirely driven by media business' customers, consumers, who understand that things that cost money to make aren't free. The tech business insists/has insisted otherwise for more than a decade, because the tech business only knows the software business model, which is not at all like the media -- or even the content -- business model. It should not be attempted to try to force these two totally different models into one, just because it might involve technology or the internet.

The internet is an infrastructure, not a website, app, etc. It (the internet) was not created by the tech business, but the telecom business and the U.S. government, as an information distribution and communications platform, with commerce functionality. The tech business is in the picture because it created/creates the software that sits on the internet and the devices that enable access to the internet, because it is software and devices is the tech industry's business/business model.

Given all of this, there won't be any "disruption" and "demise" of the media business, because it and its parent companies, etc., own far, far more in the world than tech business, and this hasn't and won't change for many reasons, most of which is companies that own media outlets also own the infrastructure which is telecom not tech.

The tech industry doesn't recognize that everything besides itself isn't a "dinosaur," especially media business. Media business is much more like a tardigrade, which has survived all centuries, mass destructions, and extinctions to date, for over 500 years. Media business is not content, content is new, only since the advent of the software/tech business, including the internet (roughly 75 years).

30 years ago yesterday, Tyke, a young elephant stolen as a baby from the wild and forced into the circus through whipping and abuse, snapped and killed her trainer while being hit to enter the tent. Tyke wasn't "angry," or "savage," -- you can see it in the video. She was upset and terrified, an act of self defense, trying to protect herself. Tyke endured years of abuse by that trainer and the circus. She was shot over 100 times before she died on the street. The confusion in her eyes as a firing line of police shot at her, for doing nothing wrong but wanting to get away from a lifetime of abuse. All animals are sentient beings, meaning they feel, have memories, think, emotions, etc. No animals, except humans, kill other living things out of malice.

Most people would have done the same after years of abuse and fear, if they were Tyke. If most humans watched how elephants -- and all animals -- are "trained" to do things like tourists rides/attractions, circuses, zoos, etc, or how the animals forced to do so live, they would not ever support anything but protecting and helping animals instead.

They'd be upset for days, as people do when they see the video of Tyke that day, or of the "crush," the tactic used to restrain and hurt an elephant repeatedly, until it's spirit is broken and it stops fighting being forced to do tricks in the circus, or give tourists rides.

If you go to the horse track, dog track, ride horses or any other animal offered by a company, have a petting zoo at a party, or think it's "so cool" to do XYZ in the wild with animals, you're contributing to their abuse and neglect, and paying someone to do it.

A lot of people don't realize this, and it's good to spread the word. Please consider going to sanctuaries for these animals instead, and use your passion to help others learn about the reality of animal tourism and entertainment for the animals. Support the causes who are working to set animals in zoos, labs, circuses, etc. free. You'll be so glad you did. Animals in these places do not want to be there, and they have no way to help themselves. They're afraid and need help. Just like Tyke.

Remembering Tyke, today and everyday, and all living things in need, including animals, people and the environment.

happened across digital health recently. while the category itself had a hard time defining itself and what it is to the rest of the world (including healthcare consumers), it has fumbled and stumbled along mostly on bridge financing by investors hoping that an exit could exist somewhere. it likely won't. it is a great lesson. 1. the industry was never going to take anything from healthcare. only healthcare industry can/will kill itself. spunky "unicorn" making an app won't cut it (that is why it did not). 2. how not to marry an audience/customer base to a new innovation/idea.

in reality, healthcare companies could always build these innovations and move customers to them. why would they, really? that's not how innovation works when you have millions to lose, even if it means gaining millions later. you instead try to milk the existing revenue as much as you can, keep it in tact as long as you can, and when you need to, move it along.

which is exactly what happened with digital health.

most founders and investors don't have the patience to navigate, disrupt and change highly regulated industries like this one. this largely in part because the tech/digital industry's roots are software, the kind of things companies installed on computers for productivity help, and so on. it's a big jump to take that scalable model that has little red tape and apply it to a big key player like healthcare with tons of obstacles.

not that it can't be done, just would take something few have. And, there are other ways to make money, and so on.

it doesn't mean that "digital health" won't exist. it means it already does, and unicorns/investors have not succeeded in the end. will it change? maybe. is it likely? no. no reason to participate in a place that is extra hard to make money when you can move onto other things.

this, of course, is what went on there. none of this is a surprise, anyone with any experience in tech, innovation, etc. would recognize this all along, and understood the play.

Fourth of July/Independence Day followed the genocide of millions of innocent, defenseless and afraid Native American men, women and children, in the most cruelest of ways. Genocide and ethnic cleansing aren't tactics that anyone supports, and nobody believes that people defending their natural land or origin makes them "savages," "terrorists," or "barbaric," as it's often been referred to over history to try to justify it, particularly today.

Thank you to those who serve and have served in our armed forces, and their families.