Thinking that any modern CPU vendor would lock out Linux is not naive, it’s the demonstration of pure ignorance and utter lack of knowledge in the world of technology.

am inclined to believe that people who use the word "sapi*"anything

You mean the word “sapient”? Because sentient doesn’t even have the letter “p” in it.

just very very gullible and/or Dunning-Kruger-victims.

A Dunning-Kruger “victim”…

You completely missed the point

Say that again into a mirror and then you’ll actually be making a real and coherent point.

So you’re arguing that we should all continue to support and create open source software, right?

To be clear, that is my position.

People didn’t stop painting when cameras were invented. Ultimate It’s just another tool that can be used.

And LLMs can be used to reverse engineer proprietary software. So there’s that.

And since the (US) courts have ruled that copyright violations are fine for training LLMs, we can extrapolate that using said LLMs to replicate proprietary software is also fine.

so you understood neurons better than neuroscientists

No, but I have no idea what that statement has to do with artificial neurons.

You have missed the part where no scientist worth their name claims to be able to fully explain how consciousness works and whether or not it affects our decision making.

And you have missed the part where I explicitly mentioned that LLMs are NOT “sapient” or “sentient”, which would preclude “consciousness” also.

Okay, I think we’re done here. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Says the person using colloquial definitions and applying them to a field of active research.

The facts don’t care about your opinions. A basic program with hardcoded decision trees is “intelligent”. An LLM can do more at a dynamic (and probabilistic) level. Therefore, LLMs fit the academic definition of intelligence.

Even the general word definition:

the ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations.

I can point an LLM to my code that’s never been seen by an LLM and it can read it, explain to me exactly what it does, point out bugs, and even give suggestions on areas that can be improved.

Is it “smart”? Debatable.

Is it conscious, sapient, sentient, or “alive”? Hard no. And that was never the argument.

Edit: autocorrect speaking mistake

LLMs clap are clap not clap AI clap.

Yes they are.

They’re built on artificial neural networks that share a basis (a basis, not a replica) with biological neurons that produce probabilistic results (not deterministic).

Plagiarism is the core and only mechanism of LLMs that produces anything that people get impressed by.

As opposed to what? Don’t get me wrong, the blatant violation of copyright is a massive issue, and in a logical world would bury each and every LLM company out there. But what other mechanism to “learn” do you think exists?

gullible people believe there is “intelligence” involved.

If you mean “intelligence” in the colloquial sense, then sure. But that’s not the same word that researchers use. Intelligence is simply the ability to make a decision based on input data. And by that definition even an if-else statement is a form of intelligence (which it is). So then the discussion becomes the degree or “amount” intelligence.

LLMs are absolutely intelligent. The issue is that most people conflate “intelligence” with “sentience” and “sapience”, which they are not. They aren’t “clever” or “creative”. They are extremely good at taking large swaths of information and distilling it, finding hidden patterns, of finding specific data points that are otherwise deeply buried. Good examples are finding bugs in code or novel and massively beneficial uses for existing medication (which has already happened multiple times)

I’m not defending the current state of AI. Energy use is a problem. Water use is a problem. The grift is a problem. The copyright violations are a problem.

But this “LLMs are not AI” rhetoric is just pure ignorance.

Well, the “pedophile ring” thing turned out to be mostly true with the Epstein stuff.

You know Albert the artist?

It’s poorly designed infrastructure. Don’t blame the people (at least not entirely). The true fault lies with the city planners.

This has always been my problem with the future of self-driving cars too

It’s not an issue with self-driving cars. It’s an issue with internet connected vehicles, regardless of autonomous driving.

My main concern with A.I. use is its ability to hide incompetence.

You mean like tab-completion in modern IDEs? Shouldn’t devs know all the function calls and methods of the standard libraries of the language they’re programming in?

Sure. That’s what this is. Pointing out that a computer program can be used as a tool is definitely a parallel to privacy violations.

Oh you don’t say? You somehow got to that conclusion from me suggesting that WoW is the 4th iteration in the series?

Believe it or not, I played the first Warcraft when it was released.

It was worse than dog shit.

As a faithful adaptation, it wasn’t very… faithful.

But honestly I think it did a good job as a story.

The thing I keep hearing people complain about is simply because of the helmet. But in reality John obviously wasn’t born with the helmet on (even though it seems that way in the game).

And they setup the emotional precedent for why John works alone and never takes off his helmet. Season 3 was gearing up to be pretty awesome.

Seasons 1 and 2 were more like the prequels to the story (admittedly one’s no one asked for), and season 3 was going to be the actual Halo story.

I just think it should’ve been given the chance.

Warcraft 4 would be nice.

You mean World of Warcraft?

Don’t worry, Blizzard got plenty of use out of that.

Is it because of shame?

Yes, and because people might be afraid there going to be attacked for using it.

“Let us know when you are using LLMs”

But this is impossible to enforce.

It’s called Metalhead, from Black Mirror

Thanks!

(you could have also just asked, instead of this comment, would have gladly said so)

(That was me asking in an indirect way. You also didn’t have to put that sentence in parenthesis, I still would have read it!)

“Happy” is an odd choice of words here.

An LLM is just a tool. Some iterations have some value in some circumstances. In those cases it’s fine. But look around at the comments here and you’ll see many people basically accusing Debian of selling out. If a dev sees that reaction then they may not want to disclose their own use of LLMs.

Not at all, because it’s impossible to know for sure if committed code had some form of AI generated parts, AI assisted review, prototyping, etc.

By making it mandatory you can potentially alienate good developers who may feel their work ethics would be scrutinized negatively (like in these comments).

It would have been good to have at least one major distro that was AI free

Then you’d need to use one without the Linux kernel

Well, certain inputs like <up> <down> <left> <right> will map directly to keyboard equivalents. The OK button generally maps to <enter>. And then other inputs like play/pause, volume, skip forward/backward are standard PC inputs that just about every OS supports out of the box. Most keyboards have those buttons on them and they “just work”.

For additional functionality you can use specialized software to manage it.

The IR receiver is just a “translator”. The input the computer sees is just a standard HID peripheral (Human Input Device).