It drew the lowest support of any proposal on the agenda.

The plan was submitted in January by Ethan Peck, an employee at the conservative think tank National Center for Public Policy Research, using his personal Meta shares.

He argued that Bitcoin, with its 124% price surge in 2024, offered a superior alternative to Meta’s $72 billion in cash and short-term investments.

His proposal urged the company to evaluate Bitcoin as an inflation hedge and “responsible asset allocation” tool.

Peck has also tried — and so far failed — to get Microsoft and Amazon to consider similar measures.

The final version incorporates several amendments that emerged during House deliberations. This includes authorization for the Comptroller to engage qualified liquidity providers and expand the fund’s financial capabilities. Legislative negotiators made major modifications to the original proposal during conference committee discussions.

A key revision extends the duration requirement for eligible cryptocurrencies from 12 months to 24 months. This means altcoins must maintain a minimum market capitalization of $500 billion for two full years before qualifying for inclusion in the reserve.

Members of the conference committee declined to allow the Comptroller to use reserve assets for lending or staking. In addition, they removed clauses that would have allowed voluntary cryptocurrency contributions to the fund.

The legislation positions Texas to become the third state to establish an official Bitcoin reserve. This is following pioneering efforts by New Hampshire and Arizona. The development shows a growing trend among state governments exploring cryptocurrency as a tool for financial diversification and economic resilience.

Solo Satoshi Units Power The Rig
Based on reports from Solo Satoshi, the maker of the Bitaxe Gamma, over 10,000 of their open-source miners sold in April. That added more than 10 petahashes (PH) to the global Bitcoin network.

The Gamma model is energy-efficient. It draws about the same power as a space heater and can fit in a backpack. That makes it a favorite for home users who don’t want a noisy machine in their living room.

Part 1/8:

Google V3: A New Era in AI Video Generation

Google has recently introduced its latest iteration of AI video generation technology, V3, marking a significant advancement in the realm of artificial intelligence. Along with this release comes Flow, a platform that beautifully integrates image, audio, and video modalities. However, the introduction of these technologies does come with a substantial price tag of approximately $250 per month. Are the advancements worth this investment? After a thorough review, we break down what V3 offers, its limitations, and whether it’s a worthwhile purchase for potential users.

The Voice of V3: AI Can Talk!

Part 2/8:

One of the most exciting features introduced in V3 is its ability to produce dialogue, broadening the scope of what users can create. To illustrate this feature, the reviewer conducted a series of street interviews on people’s perceptions of AI-generated video content. Responses highlighted a wide range of emotions, from excitement regarding potential empowerment for artists to concerns about authenticity. This highlights an essential tension in the adoption of AI technologies—balancing innovation with artistic integrity.

Nostalgia with a Modern Twist

Part 3/8:

Another demonstration involved the generation of a '90s sitcom-inspired video. The output captured a retro aesthetic reminiscent of classic television, complete with glitches characteristic of the era's broadcast quality. However, the auto-generated subtitles were criticized for being poorly executed, showcasing an area ripe for improvement.

User-Sourced Creativity

The review also touched on user-generated outputs, showcasing a variety of community contributions. From playful tongue twisters to snippets of gaming commentary, the results were a testament to the platform's versatility. These outputs reinforce the idea that community engagement can yield creative and often unexpected results.

Comparing the Versions: V2 vs. V3

Part 4/8:

A comparative analysis of V2 and V3 highlighted subtle improvements, particularly in the text-to-video outputs. While both versions performed decently, V3 showed enhanced image clarity and reduced artifacting. For instance, a cinematic sequence inspired by classic films demonstrated a richer visual quality and fluid motion in V3, indicating a step forward, albeit not drastically so.

The Power of Text Prompts

The text-to-video feature notably succeeded in V3 while delivering outputs that felt more cinematic. Users could describe scenes using text, resulting in richer dialogues and contextually coherent visuals. This feature stands out as a key strength of the newer platform, catering to those who prefer a guided and controlled creation process.

The Challenges Remain

Part 5/8:

Despite its advancements, V3 is not without issues. The AI struggled with technical nuances during complex sequences, such as fight scenes, leading to humorous yet chaotic outputs. The AI's improvisational dialogue, while entertaining, often resulted in nonsensical exchanges that detracted from the intended scenes.

A Price to Pay

Part 6/8:

The elephant in the room regarding V3 is its subscription model. The base cost of $250 per month is steep, particularly when the platform still feels underdeveloped. While users receive 12,500 credits for video generation—equating to approximately 83 videos—the question remains if such a price can be justified given the platform’s current limitations. The review suggested that those solely interested in AI-generated videos might find the price prohibitive, echoing sentiments echoed by the community.

Suggestions for Improvement

Part 7/8:

Many users hope that Google considers implementing a more flexible pricing structure. A system could allow lower-cost access to basic features while providing options for increased functionality—similar to models adopted by competitors. The reviewer noted that constructive feedback could be directed to Google’s collaboration platforms.

The Conclusion: A Preview of What's to Come

While Google V3 heralds a new chapter in AI video generation, it’s crucial for potential users to temper their expectations. The capabilities demonstrated present a glimpse of the potential future of AI-generated media. For now, interested creatives may want to remain patient as improvements roll out. The AI video landscape is rapidly evolving, and V3 is just the beginning.

Part 8/8:

Ultimately, this initial wave of technology serves as a precursor to significant advancements anticipated in the coming months. The journey into AI-generated video may be worth exploring for early adopters, but for many, waiting might yield an even more robust set of features in the near future.

Part 1/7:

The Rise of AI Video Technology: Implications for Content Creation

With the launch of Google's VO3 and other AI filmmaking applications, the world of digital content is experiencing a transformative surge. The capabilities of AI-driven video technology are impressive, allowing for the creation of various media, including viral memes, advertisements, and even corporate videos. As content creators increasingly adopt these tools, concerns are rising not only about their impact on creativity but also on viewer authenticity and the future of the labor market.

The Technology Landscape

Part 2/7:

AI video technology has reached a level where it can produce compelling and sometimes frighteningly realistic content. This evolution raises significant questions about trust in media; if AI can create believable fake videos, then how can we discern reality from fabrication? The proliferation of this technology threatens to erode the public's trust in all video content, regardless of its authenticity. As a result, manipulated historical footage and deepfake videos may become commonplace, leading to a scenario where even genuine footage is doubted. Such a development not only distorts reality but also contributes to a jaded outlook on truth and authenticity online.

Impacts on Employment

Part 3/7:

The rapid advancement of AI technology has raised concerns about its impact on the job market, especially among traditional and creative roles. The potential for AI to replace manual labor is evident, but the repercussions extend to creative industries as well. Costs associated with content creation will plummet as companies turn to AI for advertisements and videos that previously relied heavily on human input, such as scriptwriters, directors, and actors. As a result, many individuals in the creative sector face an uncertain future in employment, competing with AI that can generate high-quality content at unprecedented speeds.

The Changing Landscape for Content Creators

Part 4/7:

As AI becomes more entwined in content production, YouTubers and social media influencers are not immune to its effects. While the technology might enhance workflows, it brings challenges of its own: human creators may struggle to retain an audience in the face of AI-generated content that delivers faster and in larger quantities. Despite the daunting competition posed by AI, the human touch may still hold value—many viewers crave authentic connections. In genres like news and personal vlogs, the desire for human engagement could keep traditional content creators relevant.

The Future of Authenticity

Part 5/7:

The emerging trend indicates that while AI video will dominate the market, a unique selling point for some creators may be their authenticity. The notion that “authenticity is the currency of the future” underscores the importance of genuine human interaction. Audiences, bombarded by AI-generated content, may seek out the rare human connection found in traditional videos.

This tension between AI efficiency and human authenticity suggests that while AI can create visually stunning content, it may lack the deeper engagement that comes from human-generated works. Successful content creation may hinge on providing value—offering viewers something unique or thought-provoking rather than simply relying on novelty and distraction.

Navigating the New Landscape

Part 6/7:

Content creators face a pivotal moment: they can either adapt to the burgeoning AI landscape or continue to follow traditional methods. Those aiming to maintain their presence might need to focus on delivering content that enriches viewers’ experiences genuinely. While AI can generate content rapidly, the essence of what makes content engaging remains rooted in its human origin.

Closing Thoughts: Embracing the Challenge

The rise of AI video technology brings forth various challenges and opportunities. Content creators must grapple with questions of authenticity, trust, and employment while navigating a transformed creative landscape. However daunting the competition, the commitment to creativity and genuine engagement remains the lifeblood of meaningful content.

Part 7/7:

In reflecting on the changes brought by AI, the message is clear: creators must continue to promote unique value, ensure human authenticity, and ultimately find a balance amidst the technological shift. As we embrace the future of content creation, it’s essential to remember that the connection we forge with our audience will always matter, regardless of the tools we use.

For those interested, the author offers further insights through their book, The Checkmate Machine: How Modern Smart Tech Ruins Everything, available in various formats—a timely read for anyone looking to understand the broader implications of AI technology.

Part 1/10:

The Age of Machines: Understanding our Path toward an Uncertain Future

In recent discussions surrounding the evolving landscape of work, technology, and human purpose, a central theme has emerged: for over 200 years, society has linked the meaning of life primarily to one’s job. However, as technology advances, particularly in artificial intelligence and automation, we find ourselves at a critical juncture where the traditional structure of work is being challenged. The implications of this shift are profound, posing significant questions about the future of labor, value, and even capitalism itself.

The Paradigm Shift in Value Creation

Part 2/10:

This conversation is brought forth by Hibert, a partner at Uniscoco Ventures, who explores how digital technology has often been misunderstood. Many view machines simply as traditional tools, failing to appreciate the fundamental shifts they represent. In his book, he argues that the marginal cost of digital goods approaches zero, which is a hallmark of modern technology and fundamentally different from traditional economic principles. As he eloquently states, once we understand this zero marginal cost phenomenon alongside the universality of digital technologies, we begin to see that we are not merely in an upgraded industrial age—we are in the midst of a revolution.

Part 3/10:

As we transition into an economy where machines can do much of the labor, Hibert cautions against simplistic solutions to complex problems. Offering universal basic income (UBI) as a stopgap measure, while appealing, does not address underlying systemic changes needed in education, social contracts, and labor market frameworks.

The Role of Automation and AI

Hibert then highlights a pressing concern: as machines take on more tasks, the value of human labor diminishes. The historical alignment of labor and capital has started to unravel, especially since the 1970s, creating a situation where wealth accrues disproportionately to owners of capital while labor wages stagnate or decline.

Part 4/10:

As AI and automation evolve, there’s an imminent risk of generational job displacement. The fact that labor might shift towards zero value raises significant questions about the very foundation of capitalism. If only capital generates value, what does that mean for economic structures that have been built on labor?

Empowering the individual, rather than merely extracting attention for profit, is cited as a necessary business model shift. The need for the creation of human-centric technologies becomes clear: technology must facilitate human exploration and creativity rather than serve merely as tools of profit-maximization for corporations.

Rethinking Our Identity

Part 5/10:

With the fear of losing meaning associated with work, Hibert suggests that people often derive their identities from their professions. This creates anxiety in a world where jobs are likely to become redundant. He discusses how historical paradigms tied to agriculture shifted dramatically with the industrial revolution, allowing more people the freedom to explore other passions. Hibert envisions a similar shift with digital technologies where, by lessening people’s dependency on traditional jobs, new avenues for creativity and self-fulfillment could emerge.

Part 6/10:

However, he warns that without a structural transition—in how societies understand work and identity—people may struggle to adapt. His call to action lies in creating a narrative that fosters curiosity and imagination, encouraging individuals to think beyond conventional societal constructs.

The Promise of Universal Basic Income

Part 7/10:

The discussion around UBI is positioned as a crucial experiment in navigating this transitional period. Hibert shares insights from a pilot project where 128 individuals received monthly payments, observing remarkable outcomes: less stress, improved mental well-being, and increased agency in life decisions. These insights suggest that basic income helps realign individual priorities and opens the door to creative pursuits long overshadowed by the necessity to work for survival.

Part 8/10:

Yet, Hibert acknowledges potential drawbacks, raising concerns about dependency and disinterest in innovation. To counteract this, he advocates for reforming the education system, calling for a more curiosity-driven model that encourages individuals to explore their passions, thus preparing them for a world where traditional jobs may not be the norm.

The Challenges Ahead

Hibert emphasizes that while the future holds promise, the path toward achieving it is fraught with challenges. Issues regarding housing affordability, demographic trends, and economic policies require urgent attention. The transition to a basic income system also demands a robust change in taxation and welfare policies.

Part 9/10:

Throughout the conversation, Hibert argues for a re-examination of democratic processes. Traditional models of voting may not suffice in navigating the profound changes required to address these burgeoning challenges effectively. He suggests alternative democratic measures, like citizens’ assemblies, can facilitate meaningful conversations about structural changes necessary to align society with emerging technological realities.

A Vision for the Future

As Hibert closes, he reframes the discourse around technology's potential, offering a hopeful vision akin to the utopian narrative of Star Trek. He highlights the need for a future where society collectively embraces technological change through imagination and innovation rather than fear.

Part 10/10:

This optimism starkly juxtaposes the current dystopian narratives that pervade popular culture. Hibert calls on individuals, innovators, and legislators alike to cultivate a constructive dialogue focused on the ethical application of technology for societal good. The question remains: as we march forward into this uncharted territory of human existence, will we harness the full potential of technology to elevate humanity, or will we succumb to fear and inertia?

In summary, the paths we take today will define the contours of our future. The urgency to rethink our socio-economic frameworks, alongside embracing technology with a vision, lays the groundwork for a liberated society ready to thrive amid the wave of inevitable change.