It’s been years now, and I still haven’t found the exit.

No sorry, we just lost old Tommy, and nobody knows if Violet survived last Friday night.

Nice job! Oil or acrylic?

I’ve picked up sketching again recently, trying to work on my lines because they really suck. I don’t have the confidence to just grab a brush and do something like this, so respect.

What is this h t m l you speak of? Is it like tsx?

When contracting a service, usually there are clauses that specify that it needs to be fully working and available x% of time, and compensation may be due in case this goal isn’t met.

Let’s say GitHub was down for 1 full day in the last year, that’s 99.7% availability. That’s “2 nines”, but sometimes people might say “2 nines five”, meaning “better than 99.5% uptime”.

I’d say that the expectation for a high availability service nowadays is “5 nines”: 99.999% uptime. That’s around 5 minutes of downtime in a full year. This kind of performance from a site like GitHub is just unacceptable…

You’re wrong. Driverless vehicles are safer, according to all data I’ve seen.

Here’s one such example:

Of 2,052 AV incidents reported to the NHTSA, autonomous vehicles were solely at fault for only 4% of accidents that involved other road users.

The vast majority of AV-caused injuries involve animals; only 14 human injuries have resulted from the 234 incidents where an AV was at fault. There have been zero human fatalities caused by an AV from 2021-2025.

System malfunctions aren’t common; hardware or software failures accounted for 7.8% of incidents where the autonomous vehicle was found to be at fault.

I’m happy to stand corrected if there’s data that points otherwise, but I’d rather stick to facts.

I don’t get your point, you ask me a question then assume to know what my answer is, then build your case on straw?

Would you support a world government? One democratic government, one armed forces. Only the UN has the ability to be violent. Noone else.

Yes, yes I would very much support that government. I don’t see a point in “one armed forces” though, they serve no purpose in such a world, and why would the UN be allowed to be violent?

Let’s continue from here.

EDIT: About your note that anarchism doesn’t believe in the goodwill of society: I said was that freedom and equality are core rights, I don’t think you’ve corrected me on this, so the question stands on who is meant to uphold these values once they get trampled on? Is it then every man for himself, wild west style, and fuck the weak?

Anarchism is, as far as I can tell, a contradiction.

Equality and freedom are a core foundation of anarchy, right? Except, how do you enforce it when inevitably someone fails to respect others freedom and rights, if you reject any sort of hierarchy or control?

I’d really love to believe that everyone would be civically irreprehensible, but reality begs to differ.

I don’t see any future for halos in F1 cars, and forcing such an ugly implement in cars might lead to problems.

Halos will kill F1 if they persist there long enough.

Hey Siri, go to sleep.

That is indeed seductive.

Sensible, yes.

But this is alien tech in windows land, if you’re reading some device status or something, you need a special app for that.

Paimon? So the cute fluffy sidekick in Genshin is one of the princes of hell?

Partition the internet… Like during the Morris worm of '88, where they had to pull off regional networks to prevent the machines from being reinfected?

The good old days were, maybe, not that good. :)

I have been using Mint for a long while now, and I’ve been very happy with it. Can’t say I’ve felt the need to try anything else…

I was surprised at the amount of things that just broke when I tried Wayland a couple of months ago, but that’s a lot of time to fix bugs and implement missing features.

But what about second lunch?!

But then how can you tell that it’s not an actual conscious being?

This is the whole plot of so many sci-fi novels.

I’ll bite.

How would you distinguish a sufficiently advanced word calculator from an actual intelligent, conscious agent?

Let me grab all your downvotes by making counterpoints to this article.

I’m not saying that it’s not right to bash the fake hype that the likes of altman and alienberg are making with their outlandish claims that AGI is around the corner and that LLM are its precursor. I think that’s 100% spot on.

But the news article is trying to offer an opinion as if it’s a scientific truth, and this is not acceptable either.

The basis for the article is the supposed “cutting-edge research” that shows language is not the same as intelligence. The problem is that they’re referring to a publication from last year that is basically an op-ed, where the authors go over existing literature and theories to cement their view that language is a communication tool and not the foundation of thought.

The original authors do acknowledge that the growth in human intelligence is tightly related to language, yet assert that language is overall a manifestation of intelligence and not a prerequisite.

The nature of human intelligence is a much debated topic, and this doesn’t particularly add to the existing theories.

Even if we accept the authors’ views, then one might question if LLMs are the path to AGI. Obviously many lead researchers in AI have the same question - most notably, Prof LeCun is leaving Meta precisely because he has the same doubts and wants to progress his research through a different path.

But the problem is that the Verge article then goes on to conclude the following:

an AI system might remix and recycle our knowledge in interesting ways. But that’s all it will be able to do. It will be forever trapped in the vocabulary we’ve encoded in our data and trained it upon — a dead-metaphor machine. And actual humans — thinking and reasoning and using language to communicate our thoughts to one another — will remain at the forefront of transforming our understanding of the world.

This conclusion is a non sequitur. It generalizes a specific point about the capacity of LLMs to evolve into true AGI or not, into an “AI dumb” catchall that ignores even the most basic evidence that they themselves give - like being able to “solve” go, or play chess in a way that no human can even comprehend - and, to top it off, conclude that “it will never be able to” in the future.

Looking back at the last 2 years, I don’t think anyone can predict what AI research breakthroughs might happen in the next 2, let alone “forever”.