It’s such a weird thing for them to do. What do they get out of it? It’s not like their constituents are going to say, “I’m not sure about my representative but 2 years ago they censured Al Green so I’ll reelect them.”

Sorry the first link was wrong but the second link was a research paper that showed them doing it.

Just google electron microscope eeprom and you will find hundreds of documents on the procedure. The second link I provided wasn’t theoretical. It showed it actually being done.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312551555_Reverse_engineering_Flash_EEPROM_memories_using_Scanning_Electron_Microscopy “All those parameters allowed us to obtain clear differences between ‘0’ and ‘1’ states as seen in Figure 4. It has to be noted that this image is obtained without additional image processing to highlight differences between ‘0’ and ‘1’ states.”

"demonstrate the possible [emphasis added] automating "

It doesn’t say it isn’t possible but that they have a possible way of AUTOMATING it. That is instead of someone looking at the image and reading off the bits into bytes, they could take the image and output the data without human intervention.

Companies do not have to chase increased profits. That’s a choice. Genda Shigyō has been making paper products for over 1,200 years.

It doesn’t matter if other companies grow larger than your company as long as you make a profit.

That’s a consumer data recovery company. They aren’t going to use an electron microscope like a nation state, university, or dedicated emulation hacker.

https://www.pentestpartners.com/security-blog/how-to-read-from-an-eeprom/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312551555_Reverse_engineering_Flash_EEPROM_memories_using_Scanning_Electron_Microscopy

https://benjamin.computer/posts/2018-04-05-rom-reading.html

Removing American products had very little to do with tariffs. It started after Trump threatened to invade Canada.

I think the problem is that many companies, if they don’t see a path to monopoly or near monopoly, cash out and close shop.

For example Fairphone has been going for 12 years. There’s no reason BlackBerry couldn’t make a basic phone running Lineage and stick to a tiny profitable market share.

Which is weird because one of Rossman’s sources claimed that they were on the phone with Brother, asked how to do manual registration, and were told it couldn’t be done unless a genuine Brother toner cartridge was installed.

Yes

As long as the silicon got snapped and not just the softer plastic around the silicon.

If it’s actually important data that a nation state would want, most of the data could still be read off with an electron microscope.

I have a Miyoo Mini Plus

That’s because unless you want to emulate PS2 games, the Miyoo Mini Plus is still the best handheld emulator.

I have Anbernics, Retroid, and nothing is as good as the Miyoo.

“training a new model”

Is equivalent to “make a new game” with better graphics.

I’ve already explained that analogy several times.

If people pay you for the existing model you have no reason to immediately train a better one.

When you throw more hardware at them, they are supposed to develop new abilities.

I don’t think you understand how it works at all.

Data is collected. Training is done on the data. Training is done on the trained data (deep seek). You now how a model. That model is a static software program. It requires 700 GB of ram to run (deep seek). Throwing more hardware at the model does nothing but give you a quicker response.

If everyone pays you to use your model, you have no reason to develop a new one. Like Skyrim.

I’m supposed to be able to take a model architecture from today, scale it up 100x and get an improvement.

You can make Crysis run at higher fps. You can add polygons. (remember ati clown feet?) You can add details to textures. https://research.nvidia.com/publication/2016-06_infinite-resolution-textures

But really the “game” is the model. Throwing more hardware at the same model is like throwing more hardware at the same game.

Which part of diminished returns not offering as much profit did you not understand?

Current models give MS an extra 30% revenue. If they spend billions on a new model will customer pay even more? How much would you pay more for a marginally better AI?

Current games have a limit. Current models have a limit. New games could scale until people don’t see a quality improvement. New models can scale until people don’t see a quality improvement.

Sorry I meant wdm. Multimode was for home installs.

Like games have diminished returns on better graphics (it’s already photo realistic few pay $2k on a GPU for more hairs?), AI has a plateau where it gives good enough answers that people will pay for the service.

If people are paying you money and the next level of performance is not appreciated by the general consumer, why spend billions that will take longer to recoup?

And again data centers aren’t just used for AI.

If buying a new video card made me money, yes

But this is the supposition that not buying a video card makes you the same money. You’re forecasting free performance upgrades so there’s no need to spend money now when you can wait and upgrade the hardware once software improvements stop.

And that’s assuming it has anything to do with AI but the long term macroeconomics of Trump destroying the economy so MS is putting off spending when businesses will be slowing down because of the tariff war.

More efficient hardware use should be amazing for AI since it allows you to scale even further.

If you can achieve scaling with software, you can delay current plans for expensive hardware. If a new driver came out that gave Nvidia 5090 performance to games with gtx1080 equivalent hardware would you still buy a new video card this year?

When all the Telcos scaled back on building fiber in 2000, that was because they didn’t have a positive outlook for the Internet?

Or when video game companies went bankrupt in the 1980’s, it was because video games were over as entertainment?

There’s a huge leap between not spending billions on new data centers ( which are used for more than just AI), and claiming that’s the reason AI is over.

Cancelling new data centers because deep seek has shown a more efficient path isn’t proof that AI is dead as the author claims.

Fiber buildouts were cancelled back in 2000 because multimode made existing fiber more efficient. The Internet investment bubble popped. That didn’t mean the Internet was dead.

It’s my theory that QAnon was being controlled by Republican election strategists. Steve Bannon has bragged about this.

It was no coincidence that Pizzagate started immediately after the news broke that Trump used to go into teenage dressing rooms.