It helps make things more self-contained. If a Linux distribution comes with an LLM that knows how to use and tweak the OS and also knows a lot about various programming languages and lots of things in general, that's a big step towards having an OS that can be operated locally without using the internet.
I wouldn't like it if Linux required an internet connection to function, and yet... I've never been able to configure or do much of anything in Linux without referring to the internet.
It's no different than what the internet has been doing for us for decades. People tell us commands to run, we use our best judgement, maybe check a couple things, and then run the commands. If the internet suggests a command or a LLM suggests a command, what's the difference?
Like, if I could type "extract the audio of this video and re-encode it as a medium quality MP3, break up the audio into 30 consecutive tracks" in a shell, and the next line was populated with the appropriate ffmpeg command, but not yet executed, I could quickly look over the command, nothing looks fishy, so I go ahead and run the command.
LLMs have a high coolness-to-code ratio; very cool and not a lot of code. This is the type of thing open source developers are more interested in, so I hope Linux will have some good AI built-in and running locally.
Half of Linux usage is on the text-based command line anyway, just what LLMs are good at.
We often make laws without a way to enforce them 100% effectively. For example, my road has a 25 MPH speed limit even though we haven't yet installed speed limiting chips on every single car in the nation, we still went ahead and put a speed limit on our road though, and it mostly works, but sometimes someone drives 30 MPH.
Yeah... There's a lot of people complaining about politicizing the legal system tonight, and those same people said nothing when Trump's most popular campaign promise was to put his political rival in jail.
It seems the people who are the most staunch defenders of capitalism and free markets are the most resistant to the capitalist and free market solution.
Clean air (or rather, air with normal levels of carbon) belongs to the public, and anyone who wants to take it away should pay the public.
“And you know, you go back through history, this is like just before the Holocaust. I swear. If you look, it’s the same thing,” Trump said. “You had a weak president or head of the country. And it just built and built. And then, all of a sudden, you ended up with Hitler. You ended up with a problem like nobody knew.”
So Trump is claiming that Biden is a weak leader, and that after the weak leader comes somebody like Hitler. Trump hopes to be the person that comes after Biden...
I'm okay with algorithms not recommending certain posts. I just don't like shadowbans because the platform is lying to the user, the user interface is essentially telling the user "your post is available for viewing and is being treated like any other post" when it really isn't.
There's a balance between the free speech of individuals and the free speech of the company. I think a fair balance between the two is, once a company is big enough to control a significant percentage of the entire nation's discourse, the company at least has to be up front and avoid deceptive practices like shadow-banning. (This should only apply to large companies, once a company is large enough it has a responsibility to society.)
Yet another tool that uses “freedom of speech” incorrectly
Often freedom of speech is a moral ideal, a moral aspiration, and dismissing it on legal grounds is missing the point.
If I say "people should have a right to healthcare", and you respond "people do not have a legal right to healthcare", you are correct, but you have missed the point. If I say people should have freedom of speech and you respond that the first amendment doesn't apply to Facebook, you are right, but have again missed the point.
In general, when people advocate for any change, they can be countered with "well, the law doesn't require that". Yes, society currently works the way the law says it should. But what we're talking about is how society should work and how the law should change.
A problem is that social media websites are simultaneously open platforms with Section 230 protections, and also publishers who have free speech rights. Those are contradictory, so which is it?
Perhaps @rottingleaf was speaking morally rather than legally. For example, I might say "I believe everyone in America should have access to healthcare"; if you respond "no, there is no right to healthcare" you would be right, but you missed my point. I was expressing an moral aspiration.
I think shadowbans are a bad mix of censorship and hard to detect. Morally, I believe they should be illegal. If a company wants to ban someone, they can be up front about it with a regular ban; make it clear what they are doing. To implement this legally, we could alter Section 230 protections so that they don't apply to companies performing shadowbans.
Buttons @ Buttons @programming.dev Posts 7Comments 359Joined 2 yr. ago
Surely the free market and competition will deliver what customers want, right? ... Right?!?