Haha. Sure. Humans never make up bullshit to confidently sell a fake answer.

Fucking ridiculous.

No one’s claiming these are AGI. Again, you keep having to deflect to irrelevant arguments.

Again, you only say it’s a moving target to dispel anything favorable towards AI. Then you do a complete 180 when it’s negative reporting on AI. Makes your argument meaningless, if you can’t even stick to your own point.

Except you yourself just stated that it was impossible to measure performance of these things. When it’s favorable to AI, you claim it can’t be measured. When it’s unfavorable for AI, you claim of course it’s measurable. Your argument is so flimsy and your understanding so limited that you can’t even stick to a single idea. You’re all over the place.

Agreed. 70% is astoundingly high for today’s models. Something stinks.

Well not everything needs to be worth a billion. Certainly no person should ever be that rich.

People with insatiable greed have a mental disorder. They cannot even conceptualize the idea of working a reasonable amount, and being happy with a modest profit.

Maybe we should stop letting the most sociopathic & insatiable people set standards that can never be satisfied.

So you’re saying the article’s measurements about AI agents being wrong 70% of the time is made up? Or is AI performance only measurable when the results help anti-AI narratives?

I’m not sure the anti-AI marketing stance is any more solid of a position. Though it’s probably easier to defend, since it’s so vague and not based on anything measurable.

This is the same kind of short-sighted dismissal I see a lot in the religion vs science argument. When they hinge their pro-religion stance on the things science can’t explain, they’re defending an ever diminishing territory as science grows to explain more things. It’s a stupid strategy with an expiration date on your position.

All of the anti-AI positions, that hinge on the low quality or reliability of the output, are defending an increasingly diminished stance as the AI’s are further refined. And I simply don’t believe that the majority of the people making this argument actually care about the quality of the output. Even when it gets to the point of producing better output than humans across the board, these folks are still going to oppose it regardless. Why not just openly oppose it in general, instead of pinning your position to an argument that grows increasingly irrelevant by the day?

DeepSeek exposed the same issue with the anti-AI people dedicated to the environmental argument. We were shown proof that there’s significant progress in the development of efficient models, and it still didn’t change any of their minds. Because most of them don’t actually care about the environmental impacts. It’s just an anti-AI talking point that resonated with them.

The more baseless these anti-AI stances get, the more it seems to me that it’s a lot of people afraid of change and afraid of the fundamental economic shifts this will require, but they’re embarrassed or unable to articulate that stance. And it doesn’t help that the luddites haven’t been able to predict a single development. Just constantly flailing to craft a new argument to criticize the current models and tech. People are learning not to take these folks seriously.

It’s actually pretty difficult to intentionally inject a bias into AI. It’s hard enough for them to find enough legit data to train it on, and feeding it enough bullshit to regurgitate one specific belief is a bigger task than most people realize. So they put artificial constraints on it where they can, but that produces a huge drop off in output quality.

The premise of your question is all wrong. It centers western control of Taiwan as a natural status quo, and so paints every challenge of that control as a provocation or threat.

Advocating for Taiwan’s sovereignty is not the same as advocating for Taiwan’s continued fealty to the west.

The default subs are controlled by people involved with karma farming. Some of them are so bad that the mods will ban anyone with a high number of upvotes to prevent them from competing with the bots.

Funny enough, I bet the same mods will let a bot repost your pic in a few months.

GOP wants to kill it. Democrats want to privatize it. Both are an enemy of the people.

The Biden admin was trying to privatize it.

Love when western propaganda bots blatantly out themselves like this.

That’s exactly the attitude of most Linux people, and it’s completely out of touch.

You don’t win people over by telling them what’s good for them. You do it by appealing to what they want. It doesn’t matter what you think they should care about.

The aesthetics and the menu access/organization is straight out of the 90s. Hell, many of the customization options require a third-party tool to edit with the gui, or you’re stuck using the cli.

Where Apple products and UI are clearly made by designers, Linux environments are clearly made by techies who consider a gui optional. And what’s worse is all the techies gatekeeping to keep it that way.

Most of them don’t. The vast majority of people interact with their devices using a touchscreen or controller. They don’t want to repair it themselves, and they’ll turn it in for another one as soon as their payment plan is up.

Most people could use tablets/phones and have a superior user experience. PC’s in general, whether running Linux or Windows, are becoming a niche product again.

I disagree. Using a Linux desktop always feels like a trip back in time.

But it’s not just a question of Windows vs Linux anymore. For web browsing and basic apps that the vast majority of people use the internet for, tablets & phones are offering a superior user experience.

This is a big driving force in the decline of desktop computer sales. A desktop or laptop is overkill for what most people need, so it’s become specialty equipment (again). And if you’re going to need a pc for specialized needs, the Windows os is going to cover all of those. Linux probably will cover your needs.