Russ

Yes you are, they are advertising their platforms like you are free to comment anything and most people beleave that.

I hate to break it to you, that’s your fault for making an assumption (and a bold one at that) or you’re just quite naive. Most places that you sign up for will either have you agree to a Terms of Service, or they’ll make you agree to the rules. I have even more bad news for you: Advertisements usually try their best to show only the “good” of what is being advertised (such as how an advertisement for a toy doesn’t usually make it very clear that batteries are required to use it).

Ask anyone if they think youtube will delete their commen even if they didnt offend anyone and they will tell you no way!

No, they might be angry that their comment was removed, but it’s a pretty common understanding that moderators will remove content at their discretion, even if people don’t necessarily agree with the decision.

I’m not sure why I’m even engaging in this, usually it’s pretty clear when someone gets upset that their “free speech” (that they were never entitled to) is being violated that their intent is to spread hateful content.

Perhaps that isn’t you, but nonetheless that is the group you’re putting yourself in (even if unintentionally) whenever you ride under that banner.

It would also be worthwhile double checking what actual “Freedom of Speech” is and what it covers. Assuming you are referring to the US’ first amendment, it has absolutely nothing to do with anyone other than you and the government (and even then it has its bounds).

As an example, let’s say you’re a writer for a newspaper. The government cannot take down an article that you write in which you criticize them (because that would fall under protected speech, unless you are making direct threats towards someone), but your boss could absolutely say “No way, we’re not publishing that” as they are not a government official.

This doesn’t even just include “Freedom of Speech”, as another example, with the right to assembly you can publicly assemble and protest the government - but it wouldn’t allow you to start a protest on someone’s private property.

Okay, who is promising you free speech then?

On most platforms, you were never promised “free speech” or entitled to it.

Oh interesting, it’s been a while since I have tried to use Apple TV (roughly 7 years or so - I don’t use any Apple devices anymore), this wasn’t available at the time so I’m glad to see there’s finally some native support.

I always assumed it was more or less targeting the federation of issues/MRs.

The git side of things is already distributed as you said, but if you decide to host your random project on your own GitLab instance you’ll miss out on people submitting issues/MRs because they won’t want to sign up for an account on your random instance (or sign in with another IdP).

This is where a lot of the reliance of GitHub comes from, in my opinion.

I think they meant Apple’s “tvOS” - which powers the Apple TV set top box.

There’s no client for it, if I had to take a guess it’s likely due to the costs of doing so.

Edit: Whoops, it appears I’m a bit out of date on this.

Your son and daughter will continue to learn new things as they grow up, a LLM cannot learn new things on its own. Sure, they can repeat things back to you that are within the context window (and even then, a context window isn’t really inherent to a LLM - its just a window of prior information being fed back to them with each request/response, or “turn” as I believe is the term) and what is in the context window can even influence their responses. But in order for a LLM to “learn” something, it needs to be retrained with that information included in the dataset.

Whereas if your kids were to say, touch a sharp object that caused them even slight discomfort, they would eventually learn to stop doing that because they’ll know what the outcome is after repetition. You could argue that this looks similar to the training process of a LLM, but the difference is that a LLM cannot do this on its own (and I would not consider wiring up a LLM via an MCP to a script that can trigger a re-train + reload to be it doing it on its own volition). At least, not in our current day. If anything, I think this is more of a “smoking gun” than the argument of “LLMs are just guessing the next best letter/word in a given sequence”.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not someone who completely hates LLMs / “modern day AI” (though I do hate a lot of the ways it is used, and agree with a lot of the moral problems behind it), I find the tech to be intriguing but it’s a (“very fancy”) simulation. It is designed to imitate sentience and other human-like behavior. That, along with human nature’s tendency to anthropomorphize things around us (which is really the biggest part of this IMO), is why it tends to be very convincing at times.

That is my take on it, at least. I’m not a psychologist/psychiatrist or philosopher.

I mean, sure - but if you really don’t trust Apple to keep their word, then it wouldn’t matter if their Health app was FOSS or not. iOS itself is still (and probably forever will be) a closed source operating system. That gives them the power to do anything, including hijack the data from FOSS apps.

I have zero interest in Recall, but I thought it was already done on-device? IIRC it always was that way, which is why it’s only available on new computers containing dedicated “neural coprocessors” I believe was the term.

Now given that it’s closed source, you have to trust that they aren’t silently sending data back to themselves - which is where my problem lies, I don’t trust them in the slightest.

Jesus christ, that is absolutely disgusting. Texas has plenty of issues they should actually be working on.

I’m glad I managed to get out of there years ago.

As long as it is done properly and honest, I have nothing against a “Pro” and a “Contra” article.

Neither do I, personally. Though I am certainly less than inclined enjoy an article where the author is oddly preachy/“holier-than-thou”, sayings things such as you’re not a “real” programmer unless you sacrifice your health debugging segfaults at 3AM or have done the handmade hero challenge (certainly an interesting series to watch, but one that I have zero interest in replicating). Yet the author accuses copilot of having a superiority complex. I cannot say for sure, however I would assume if the article was in favor of AI rather than against, then there would definitely be comments about exactly this.

The overarching tone of the article seems like if it were written as a direct comment toward a user instead, it would run afoul of beehaw’s (and surely other instances’) rules, or at the least come really close to skirting the line - and I don’t mean the parts where the author is speaking of/to copilot.