this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2025
69 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1638 readers
122 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
dgerard@awful.systems
69
Humane AI finally shuts down, HP pays $116m for the pieces — not including the Ai Pin (pivot-to-ai.com)
submitted 2 days ago by dgerard@awful.systems to c/techtakes@awful.systems
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 17 points 2 days ago (2 children)

HP finding new lows to get to with printers is honestly kind of impressive. depressing as fuck, but impressive. maybe this is how the sentient printers from Gawne's Old Guy verse start up

also, I was sent this earlier:

a twitter thread screenshot, see text below

transcript@Chrisman tweet text reads: "You start a company and think what's the worst that could happen, we go bankrupt and the company dies? No. It can get so, so much worse than that." with an image screenshot from an article (not linked)

screenshot reads: "Bloomberg reports that "Humane's team, including founders Imran Chaudhri and Bethany Bongiorno, will form a new division at HP to help integrate artificial intelligence into the company's personal computers, printers and connected conference rooms,"

@JeremyGurewitz responds: "Obligations to your employees runs deep."

@Chrisman replies: "you have an obligation to your employees not to let them end up integrating ai into printers

[–] manicdave@feddit.uk 7 points 1 day ago

A humane AI in an HP printer?

I imagine it's just going to send a prompt to chatGPT like "Scan this document, if it seems important, lie about having no ink left. Find a particularly overpriced HP ink stockist near the user and give them a link to it. If they ask how you knew where to get the ink, lie about not tracking them."

[–] nightsky@awful.systems 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Fun question to think about: when was the last time HP made a product that you would actually recommend to anyone?

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

1970s probably?

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

the Laserjet 4M from the 1990s, the incredible unstoppable tank of lasers

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)
[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

this is a remarkably interesting thing with a surprisingly narrow scope. I don't know mil hardware/history well enough so I'm curious: would such opto-electric ewar actually have been a meaningful capability?

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

it was ridiculously expensive and almost useless. it's a tank sized dazzler, and it's also very visible to everyone when in use

today we have more powerful lasers that are also more compact, lighter and more efficient. i heard there's some use in ground based missile defense, and that even some combat shootdowns happened, but it's still highly experimental and needs power source. fine on CVN, less so on land

here you have perun video on this topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGzL3fZgPZY

i think there's also a kind of anti-IR guided anti-aircraft missile thing that consists of IR laser that is supposed to burn its sensors, and it might be mounted on some western jets. it's also much closer range and not sure if it's a thing. it's also much easier than burning missile part that is not a sensor, like in GBAD scenario

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 2 points 4 hours ago

highest tech battlefield gopnik discomobile

[–] TomMasz@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

LOL. HP buying you is a guarantee your tech will get messed with and forgotten. Just ask Palm.

[–] Landless2029@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

RIP Palm Pilots

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

And to think, almost a year ago to this day, they had just announced a partnership with Softbank.

[–] Blaster_M@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

With the whole capital ventures losing 50% value, they likely expected that.

VC don't go in thinking everything will net them a profit. They expect to lose on most, but that one that does kick off covers for everything that failed.

Plus it's not like they lose much in the end. Those capital losses get used to offset any capital gains from the one that worked.

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

per link, venture capital has been very reluctant to unambiguously realise the losses. a $1b book value is an (imaginary) asset you can hug and hold, a $114m loss is not.

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 5 points 2 days ago

venture capital has been very reluctant to unambiguously realise the losses

don't believe the broadsheets / the gravy train's a-rockin'