What if it suggests to engender conditions which may statistically be more likely to involve unintended unwanted violence? But also will make a lot of money

Omg self host it omg

There are people like that for anything related to AI.

Combine that with men stuff and this going to be crack for all of those people

It’s more intelligent than most people, we just have to raise the bar on what intelligence is and it will never be intelligent.

Fortunately, as long as we keep a fuzzy concept like intelligence as the yardstick of our exceptionalism, we will remain exceptionnal forever.

Hardly surprising human brains are also extremely lossy. Way more lossy than AI. If we want to keep up our manifest exceptionalism, we’d better start definning narrower version of intelligence that isn’t going to soon have. Embodied intelligence, is NOT one of those.

You just have to scan the qr code they tattoo on your balls

Audio jack isn’t an audiophile thing, it’s a “I don’t want to pay 100$ for headphones thing”

As for thickness, it doesn’t increase thickness. It is simply false, someone even retrofitted a whole audio jack into an iphone.

Nobody makes q difference between a 4mm and a 4.5mm phone, even if tgey were feature and price parity.

The reason you are giving here is made up marketing by the phone industry so they can sell earbuds.

I’ve never met someone that cared about a thinner phone, they’ve been too thin since 2015…

People that want their ducking hradphine jacks? They are everywhere.

I don’t care if it’s a verbal tick, if someone shows to my party with a flamethrower, I will assume they are here to burn witches. It does not matter to me if they really are witches or not, you show up with a flamethrower, I will do to you what is the traditionally reserved fate to those carrying flamethrowers on the battlefield. And I will even not be “asking questions later” about it.

Yes please a singularity of intellectual property that collapses the idea of ownong ideas. Of making the infinitely freely copyableinto a scarce ressource. What corrupt idiocy this has been. Landlords for ideas and look what garbage it has been producing.

What is means is they don’t own the models. They are the commons of humanity, they are merely temporary custodians. The nightnare ending is the elites keeping the most capable and competent models for themselves as private play things. That must not be allowed to happen under any circumstances. Sue openai, anthropic and the other enclosers, sue them for trying to take their ball and go home. Disposses them and sue the investors for their corrupt influence on research.

I call this legally distinct, this is legal advice.

I am flattered, however no, I just shitpost here on lemmy and have no other social media presence. Also I use AI tools to help me write like this. I like to twist context into funny things like this but it’s more of an experiment than anything serious.

The Typo Monster, he comes out at night, mostly

Removed by mod

If it wasn’t them, it would have been other people. Computer science doesn’t rest on shoulder of a “Great Man”

What Torvalds did was inspire a like-minded community to come together and work toward a collective good. On a shoe-string budget they constantly threaten Gates’ empire.

Gates on the other hand chose to enclose the intellectual commons of computer science and sell them at a profit. He extracted a heavy toll on all sectors of human activity. And what did this heavy burden buy us ? Really NOT MUCH ! It squelched out collaboration and turned programming greedy, it delivered poor bloated software that barely worked and then stagnated for 20 years. It created a farm stall for us to live in, their innovation today is only explained as a series of indignities we will have to live with, because of platform dynamics we really, literally cannot escape the black hole that is windows for they have captured the commons and have made themselves unavoidable, like the Troll asking his toll.

Richard Stallman fits into this like a ghost no one wants to admit is still haunting the room. He’s the ideological father of the free software movement, the one who laid the philosophical foundation Torvalds built Linux on, even if Linus never invited him to the party. Stallman didn’t want better software; he wanted freedom, moral clarity, and a digital commons free from the grasp of corporate overlords. While Torvalds was writing C, Stallman was writing manifestos, and now, with Gates and Torvalds grinning like co-conspirators at Redmond, Stallman is the angry prophet shouting from the parking lot of a surveillance palace, still clutching his GNU banner and a half-eaten sandwich.

But the tech world, especially the sanitized, investor-friendly version of it, has no time for prophets anymore. Stallman is inconvenient: brilliant, uncompromising, abrasive, and stubbornly allergic to PR. So while Linus gets photo ops and Gates gets legacy-polishing TED talks, Stallman gets quietly airbrushed out of the narrative like toe-cheese in the Matrix. Yet in many ways, he’s the conscience neither of them can fully erase. He’s not in the room, but the room still trembles when someone whispers “GPL.”