D
BRN Discussion Ongoing
- Thread starter TechGirl
- Start date
Stable Genius
Regular
I think the decision was made some time ago. America or China!
I don’t know all the legislative details of it but the move to ban all Americans working in China on technological issues couldn’t be stronger.
It was a case of come home or lose American Citizenship!
It’s not unrealistic for there to be armed conflict with China in the near future. Do we really want to help them gain a technological advantage?
Personally I don’t want to sell my soul!
D
Deleted member 118
Guest
Kachoo
Regular
Depends if it's a toy for kids or a toy for adults. There is plenty info on pelredictive maintenance on BRN site that was one of the first uses.
Stable Genius
Regular
Lol, I wasn‘t asking FF for a plan. I was referencing his %1 quote.
I don‘t go into the bakery and tell the cook how to bake his bread, the surgeon how to do his surgery or the mechanic how to fix my car!
I’m sure the plan is a lot longer than 6 months. I heard a podcast with PVDM who 10 years ago outlined where he would be with his creation and he’s pretty spot on. The board are all very respected people within the industry. I trust them to do their job. The day I don’t I will sell!
Every day we can buy, sell or hold.
I’m sleeping easily with my decision.
I trust they are trying to, but you can only reward results. Give someone else a go.
Deadpool
Did someone say KFC
I was under the impression that the US federal government won't allow any new tech to fall in the hands of Xi's regime, let alone this little disruptive gem.
Stable Genius
Regular
This document is well worth a read to explain part of America’s position on China but as it’s 756 pages here is the executive summary:
Executive Summary
No comfortable historical reference captures the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on national security. AI is not a single technology breakthrough, like a bat-wing stealth bomber. The race for AI supremacy is not like the space race to the moon. AI is not even comparable to a general-purpose technology like electricity.
However, what Thomas Edison said of electricity encapsulates the AI future: “It is a field of fields ... it holds the secrets which will reorganize the life of the world.” Edison’s astounding assessment came from humility. All that he discovered was “very little in comparison with the possibilities that appear.”
The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) humbly acknowledges how much remains to be discovered about AI and its future applications. Nevertheless, we know enough about AI today to begin with two convictions.
First, the rapidly improving ability of computer systems to solve problems and to perform tasks that would otherwise require human intelligence—and in some instances exceed human performance—is world altering. AI technologies are the most powerful tools in generations for expanding knowledge, increasing prosperity, and enriching the human experience. AI is also the quintessential “dual-use” technology. The ability of a machine to perceive, evaluate, and act more quickly and accurately than a human represents a competitive advantage in any field—civilian or military. AI technologies will be a source of enormous power for the companies and countries that harness them.
Second, AI is expanding the window of vulnerability the United States has already entered. For the first time since World War II, America’s technological predominance—the backbone of its economic and military power—is under threat. China possesses the might, talent, and ambition to surpass the United States as the world’s leader in AI in the next decade if current trends do not change. Simultaneously, AI is deepening the threat posed by cyber attacks and disinformation campaigns that Russia, China, and others are using to infiltrate our society, steal our data, and interfere in our democracy. The limited uses of AI-enabled attacks to date represent the tip of the iceberg. Meanwhile, global crises exemplified by the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change highlight the need to expand our conception of national security and find innovative AI-enabled solutions.
BaconLover
Founding Member
Not sure changing the CEO would do any good.
Takes for ever to know the pulse of the company, and what if the new CEO is not as good?
Drags the company back another year or two if that happens.
They are still managing to grow partnerships. Doesn't reflect on the SP, but I think that doesn't warrant a change of personnel this quick.
I want IP contracts as much as anyone here, but the last thing we want is to make a great asset to the company a scape goat because we didn't get deals within a few months.
Let's be real here, some of the Anns were avoided on the market by the Board (whatever the reasons were...), not CEO alone from what we know.
I wouldn't want to lose him for not the reasons that he was responsible for, let us wait for the AGM to see what he brings to the table.
Takes for ever to know the pulse of the company, and what if the new CEO is not as good?
Drags the company back another year or two if that happens.
They are still managing to grow partnerships. Doesn't reflect on the SP, but I think that doesn't warrant a change of personnel this quick.
I want IP contracts as much as anyone here, but the last thing we want is to make a great asset to the company a scape goat because we didn't get deals within a few months.
Let's be real here, some of the Anns were avoided on the market by the Board (whatever the reasons were...), not CEO alone from what we know.
I wouldn't want to lose him for not the reasons that he was responsible for, let us wait for the AGM to see what he brings to the table.
VictorG
Member
BRN can lay its cards on the table, let the world see everything they're working on and with whom they are working with.
It won’t change a shorter into a buyer because shorters will always be shorters, they are the scum of the earth. They will always argue their reasoning for shorting a stock even when the company has huge revenue, bright prospects, good management and solid assets.
Patience is a shorters kryptonite, and I have patience of Job.
It won’t change a shorter into a buyer because shorters will always be shorters, they are the scum of the earth. They will always argue their reasoning for shorting a stock even when the company has huge revenue, bright prospects, good management and solid assets.
Patience is a shorters kryptonite, and I have patience of Job.
alwaysgreen
Top 20
I'm not calling for his head, just wondering what the difficulty is with getting people to sign on the dotted line? If there are no license signings this quarter, do you think there should be some sort of explanation as to why? Or at least an update on whether negotiations are progressing?
Aside from the lack of licenses, I think Sean has done an excellent job, transitioning the company to an IP company and really ramping up the sales team. Partnerships are also amazing and I can't wait for them to bear (bare?) fruit.
I'm just hungry now and really want a few mangoes and cherries in the form of IP licenses!
Last edited:
Tothemoon24
Top 20
Just my opinion. ( yes there like arseholes)
If I was getting frustrated by the lack of IP deals & a stale share price .
The last place I be spending my time would be on this forum , for me it would lead me to becoming more frustrated.
No body can make you feel any better or provide you with any information that will help ease your frustrations.
If I was getting frustrated by the lack of IP deals & a stale share price .
The last place I be spending my time would be on this forum , for me it would lead me to becoming more frustrated.
No body can make you feel any better or provide you with any information that will help ease your frustrations.
Stable Genius
Regular
So becoming an Intel IFS member is a non event? They were a direct competitor. That’s massive they have signed us up.
They want to achieve market share and need Akida. We are now in their pipeline. Intel want to make money. Intel want to remain relevant. They want to keep up with SiFive and Arm. Intel will now be pushing our product where they can‘t use theIr research chip.
It’s been discussed numerous times how long the process to go to market is. Mercedes Benz will have us in their cars by 2025 by the latest. How many is still questionable but Jeremy NADAL stated their could quite possibly be 70 sensors (my words) per vehicle. Mercedes sell roughly 2 million cars a year. Great times ahead!
The companies are protecting Billion dollar markets. They will keep their NDA’s to their chest until the last possible time to ensure they have a competitive edge. I would too!
This has all been discussed before: it’s exhausting!
alwaysgreen
Top 20
Yeah but I can't talk to my wife about it haha. She couldn't care less about Brainchip. Just shooting the breeze with other shareholders.
Labsy
Regular
Surely you are joking right?
Tothemoon24
Top 20
That’s fair enough mate each to their own , I’m just saying this isn’t the place for me to be if I was ever feeling down on the chip .
Rise from the ashes
Regular
Rise from the ashes
Regular
Perhaps they prefer whatever BrainChip can produce
that's my thought also mate.Being an Intel IFS is not the same in them investing a measly (for them) $10Mill to come up with a chip that they can use/sell/own.
We went for the big play - IP only and everyone will que up. Except they didn't. What we were expecting was that Intel would license Akida IP and build their own version of Akida 1500. But they didn't. But they put our logo on a web page. Nice.
So now we're making the advanced chip the Intel won't own and didn't want to own.
So yes, becoming an Intel IFS member is a non event. That's why there was no announcement.
Similar threads
