That is not what I remember, Pentium was horrible, and even Pentium Pro was horrible too, except not quite as much.
Of course if you compare with an old i486 25SX that’s worse and lacked a floating point unit. But when Pentium MMX came out the AMD 486 DX4 at 120 MHz had been out for a while. You have to compare with the i486 that was available at the same time. I don’t quite remember the details, but here was also AMD K6 and K6-2 that competed well against Intel.
Pentium 2 was decent and a lot better than the original Pentium, and Pentium Pro and Pentium MMX were not very good either. Pentium 3 was very good. Then Pentium 4 was horrible again. And it became AMD with Athlon.

But GPU, RAM and Motherboards were also significant factors in responsiveness back then. Those are generally not an issue for ordinary desktop usage today.
But in the mid 90’s Windows 95 was pretty taxing for just a slightly old computer. Running Windows with a slow GPU/Driver driver would absolutely kill the performance no matter which CPU was onboard.

Pentium was only cool because it followed i8086 - i80186 - i80286 - i80386 - i80486.
So instead of just increasing the number by 100 and calling it i80586 like they’d done for more than a decade, Pentium was the first to even have a name. AFAIK this was only for copyright reasons, because you can’t copyright a number. Pentium as a descriptive name however was a dead end, because following that logic the next gen would be Hexium which sounds stupid. So it was not a good naming scheme.

Apart from that the first Pentium 60 and 66 MHz definitely weren’t cool, they sucked balls, because they got hot and performed terribly, and were very expensive for the time. 486 were generally better up until Pentium 2 came out.

48 Tops NPU!

I don’t know how that compares to AMD, but for fucks sake that’s fast!
It just dawned on me that in the early 80’s we used MIPS for million when stating how fast a CPU was, and Tops is for Trillion! That’s a million times faster than 40 years ago!

they are definitely not doing everything they can to increase their conversion rate.

Oh you mean like prompting users to buy extra services all the time?
Yes they are actually doing exactly that.

Of course I do, but ChatGPT still has a free option. And the basis to compare paid subscriptions when there is also a free option stand IMO.
Without a good free option, how would it be only 5% who pay? It’s exactly the same as with Youtube in that regard.

The free option is a form of advertising and allowing people to get to know the service. With Youtube the free option isn’t really free, you pay by allowing advertising.
So by that comparison Youtube is actually the worse free option of the two. And despite that more people pay for ChatGPT.
So your argument that they are not the same, actually makes ChatGPT numbers even more impressive not less.

Paying gives advantages on youtube, just the same as ChatGPT.

That’s a weird editorializing of the headline, for an article that describes wide spread use, and a market of rapidly growing value.

For instance a sentence like these:

This is no longer experimentation; it’s habit formation at an unprecedented scale.

This rapid adoption drives real dollars: In the two and a half years since OpenAI’s ChatGPT introduced the public to generative AI, consumer AI has become a multibillion-dollar market.

One of the most surprising findings? Parents are among the most engaged AI users, turning to AI for everyday help.

Even ChatGPT, with its first-mover advantage, only converts about 5% of its weekly active users into paying subscribers

Considering there’s a pretty strong free option, 5% is not bad.
How many pay for using Youtube? IDK but my guess is that it is way less than 5%.
How many pay for using search? My bet is that we are in the thousandth on that. Yet search is profitable!

State subsidies and a huge protected home market.
But to be fair, they really made the most of it. So absolutely also talent.

Safroadu Yeboah-Amankwah, Intel’s Chief Strategy Officer will be leaving the company as of today,

I thought the S was for scientific, because technology wise Intel has not been doing well for a long time.
But the S is strategy, and although he was only there for 5 years, Intel sure needs new strategies, because the old ones from when Intel was a near monopoly hasn’t worked for more than a decade now, and apparently Safroadu hasn’t been able to turn it around.

Time will tell if Lip-Bu Tan’s new strategy of trying to build a leaner Intel will work in the long term,

Problem is that recent decisions after Gelsinger don’t show much promise, like just making a goal of higher profit margins is not the right kind of goal to set, when your products are not ready for it. There is no vision, and therefore no real goals.

Time is running out for Intel, because TSMC is powering even further ahead, Samsung is still in the game and does not have financial problems, and China is lurking in the shadows. I do not believe being fourth in production in 5-10 years will be a money making position.

X86 is the only thing that is still a money maker for Intel, but desktop use is declining fast, and AMD continues to take server marketshare, and Arm could very likely threaten X86 way more in the future, as Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and other major server players, take control of their own hardware with Arm. And Microsoft is experimenting with Arm for windows to potentially transition laptops first and desktops later, like Apple did.

So in short, righting up the giant tanker in the storm like Intel is in, is far from an easy task, they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Hopefully for them, they can get smarter people than me to manage the task, but as it looks, the people they have on it, are not smart enough.

The article says Mac sales are declining too.
Apparently most of the decline is people that are simply ditching their PC because they don’t need it anymore.

I think this points to the idea that knowing why an answer is correct is important.

If by knowing you mean understanding, that’s consciousness like General AI or Strong AI, way beyond ordinary AI.
Otherwise of course it knows, in the sense of having learned everything by heart, but not understanding it.

it doesn’t know or understand

But that’s not what intelligence is, that’s what consciousness is.
Intelligence is not understanding shit, it’s the ability to for instance solve a problem, so a frigging calculator has a tiny degree of intelligence, but not enough for us to call it AI.
There is simply zero doubt an AI is intelligent, claiming otherwise just shows people don’t know the difference between intelligence and consciousness.

Passing an exam is a form of intelligence.
Can a good AI pass a basic exam?
YES.
Does passing an exam require consciousness?
NO.
Because an exam tests abilities of intelligence, not level of consciousness.

it can only guess at the next statistically most likely piece of information based on the data that has been fed into it. That’s not intelligence.

Except we do the exact same thing! Based on prior experience (learning) we choose what we find to be the most likely answer. And that is indeed intelligence.

Current AI does not have the reasoning abilities we have yet, but they are not completely without it, and it’s a subject that is currently worked on and improved. So current AI is actually a pretty high form of intelligence. And can sometimes out compete average humans in certain areas.

That headline is a straw man, and the article really argues on General AI, which also has consciousness.
The current state of AI is definitely intelligent, but it’s not GAI.
Bullshit headline.

AMD used Global Foundries when they started this strategy, and technologically they beat intel because of it, despite an inferior production process.
So as I wrote, the strategy is solid.

Intel has been behind since like 2015

This is just stupid, AMD was way behind Intel until the arrival of Ryzen in March 2017, and Epyc came later.
When AMD was later released from the GloFo agreement, they could stave off Intel with better production process from TSMC too.

2015 is probably around the time Intel lost their production process advantage, but they were not way behind yet at that point.

To reach these high core counts (relative to China’s current manufacturing capabilities), Loongson is using a quad-chiplet layout interlinked with its Loongson Coherent Link (LoongLink) technology to achieve a 64-core configuration. LoongLink is Loongson’s equivalent to Intel’s mesh interconnect, Nvidia’s NVLink, and AMD’s Infinity Fabric.

This is the strategy AMD used with their Epyc server chips to take marketshare from Intel in the server market, and it works.
AMD also used it for Threadripper, and AMD has taken the HPC market completely away from Intel.

So this is absolutely an excellent strategy to compensate for being behind on manufacturing process.

The Danish government said on Thursday it would strengthen protection against digital imitations of people’s identities

Good call. 👍

So Iran knew EXACTLY how strong they needed to make their defenses!
Pretty stupid of the American military to give that info to a game developer, that would obviously use it.

But the information still seems valid.

From this article it sounds very likely that the bunker buster attack failed.

Both Aarhus and Copenhagen municipalities have decided this, and the ministry of Digitization is pioneering it for government administration. The decision so far primarily regards MS Office and MS cloud services, and MS Windows.
The minister has even stated that the rollout is to begin already within 3 weeks!
Also the government has decided to make guidelines to make the switch away from American software and services easier. These guidelines are meant both for public services AND private businesses.

We haven’t seen any results yet, but at least the political decision seems clear. The goal is to end dependency on American software and services for Denmark. Which is in line with a similar decision earlier this year for EU.