High five, brother :) I think the XP crowd was just the generation of “one step more tolerant towards privacy intrusions” / not quite computer knowledgeable enough to understand the implications of letting your operating system phone home. In terms of user interface, it was indeed tolerable - you could still configure it to look and behave like Win2K mostly, which is what I had to do for work for quite a long time.

Compared to Win2k, it would just be a resource-hog. :/

Agreed, XP was the turning point - I decided I will never let such an intrusive software on my private computers, so I switched from Win2k to Linux.

I liked Win2K, yes - then Linux :)

My trivial (non legal ;) answer is: If you are working for a corporation that is looking to patent something / make something closed license: the moment you ever looked at a single line of my code relevant to what you are doing, you are forbidden from releasing under any more restrictive license. If you are a private person working on open source? Then you be the judge whether you copied enough of my code that you believe it is more than just “inspired by”.

again, I don’t have a problem with copying code - but I as a developer know whether I took enough of someone else’s algorithm so that I should mention the original authorship :) My only problem with circumventing licenses is when people put more restrictive licenses on plagiarized code.

And - I guess - in conclusion, if someone makes a license too free, so that putting a restrictive (commercial) license or patent on plagiarized / derived work, that is also something I don’t want to see.

As I am a big proponent of open source, there is nothing wrong even with copying code - the point is that you should not be allowed to claim something as your own idea and definitely not to claim copyright on code that was “inspired” by someone else’s work. The easiest solution would be to forbid patents on software (and patents altogether) completely. The only purpose that FOSS licenses have is to prevent corporations from monetizing the work under the license.

“Why does no one say murder is bad unless China is murdering”

I can not fathom how you absolutely nailed the essence of my comment, yet misunderstood it (and - arguably - your own example) so fundamentally.

Let me try to help, once:

“Why do most people not complain about murder when Microsoft is doing it, but when China is doing it, the very justified outrage can be heard?”

With the obligatory “fuck everyone who disregards open source licenses”, I am still slightly amused at this raising eyebrows while nearly no one is complaining about MS using github to train their copilot LLM, which will help circumvent licenses & copyrights by the bazillion.

That is indeed exactly my point. LLMs are just a language-tailored expression of deep-learning, which can be incredibly useful, but should never be confused for any kind of intelligence (i.e. logical conclusions).

I appreciate that you see my point and admit that it makes some sense :)

Example where I think pattern recognition by deep learning can be extremely useful:

• recheck medical imaging data of patients that have already been screened by a doctor, to flag some data for a re-check by a second doctor. This could improve chances of e.g. early cancer detection for patients, without a real risk of a false detection, because again, a real doctor will look at the flagged results in detail before even alarming a patient to a potential diagnosis
• pre-filter large amounts of data for potential matches -> e.g. exoplanet search by certain patterns (planet hunters lets humans do this as crowdsourcing)

But what I am afraid is happening for people who do not see why a very simple algorithm is already AI, but consider LLMs AI, is that they mentally decide to call AI what seems “AGI” / “human-like”. They mistake the patterns of LLMs for a conscious being and that is incredibly dangerous in terms of trusting the answers given by LLMs.

Why do I think they subconsciously imply (self-)awareness / conscience? Because to not consider as (very limited) AI a control mechanism like a simple room thermostat, is viewing it as “too simple” to be AI - which means that a person with such a view makes a qualitative distinction between control laws and “AI”, where a quantitative distinction between “simple AI” and “advanced AI” would be appropriate.

And such a qualitative distinction that elevates a complex word guessing machine to “intelligence”, that can only be made by people who actually believe there’s understanding behind those word predictions.

That’s my take on this.

AI did boom, but people don’t realize the peak happened a year ago.

A simple control algorithm “if temperature > LIMIT turnOffHeater” is AI, albeit an incredibly limited one.

LLMs are not AI. Please don’t parrot marketing bullshit.

The former has an intrinsic understanding about a relationship based in reality, the latter has nothing of the likes.

If the AI boom is a dud,

Whaddya mean, “if”? Emperor wears no clothes…

The Last Door (1 & 2)

Darkside Detective

Thank me later.

Let’s say both then. Both the US and China are surveillance states, and that makes them both bad.

/signed

But also: all five-eyes states, and then a couple more. With western European countries trying hard to compete in the “who can fuck their citizens the mostest the bestest”

Tesla drivers are c*nts anyways :p Focus on proper EVs.

This is the basic idea, yes. :(

Get fucked, Facebook. Rot in pain, Zuckfuck.

Ahahah. No.

This. I made sure to never set foot in a newer Boeing since those grounded models were ungrounded.

I did get the point, just felt like you walked right into that one ;) As for pronouns, I believe each person is different & one should ask them before assuming - but I also think “misgendering” someone in past tense regarding a time before their transition, before being informed about their preferences, shouldn’t be met with the same disdain as the “vanilla misgendering”. In general none of us should be getting our panties in a wrinkle over other people’s way of addressing us unless there’s malicious intent (and even then, getting angry about it is just going to ruin our own day, chances are not theirs if they are that inconsiderate.

prefers to refer to their pre-transition selves by their current pronouns

so “I/me/mine”, right? :*P