My nVidia-branded plastic "sculpture" with a laser-etched 3D Eiffel tower and an actual pre-production GeForce 3 GPU embedded.
In the early 2000s I worked for a small game studio and got the attention from Nvidia for how we used their graphics cards. They wanted us to adapt our game to their new secret GeForce 3 project which was the first programmable GPU (as in shaders).
It was a crazy time with a lot of stories to tell. We got invited to the press conference for the new card, which was held in the Eiffel tower. Yeah, they actually rented the Eiffel tower.
As a thank-you for the work we'd done their developer relations representative had these made for all of the external game developers involved.
The article makes several claims and insinuations without backing them up so I find it hard to follow any of the reasoning.
I don't think it's desirable that it's easier to reason about an AI than about a human. If it is, then we haven't achieved human-level intelligence. I posit that human intelligence can be reasoned about given enough understanding but we're not there yet, and until we are we shouldn't expect to be able to reason about AI either. If we could, it's just a sign that the AI is not advanced enough to fulfill its purpose.
Postel's law IMHO is a big mistake - it's what gave us Internet Explorer and arbitrary unpredictable interpretation of HTML, leading to decades of browser incompatibility problems. But the law is not even applicable here. Unlike the Internet, we want the AI to appear to think for itself rather than being predictable.
"Today's highly-hyped generative AI systems (most famously OpenAI) are designed to generate bullshit by design." Uh no? They're designed with the goal to generate useful content. The bullshit is just an unfortunate side effect because today's AI algorithms have not evolved very far yet.
If I had to summarize this article in one word, that would be it: bullshit.
I keep lists on my phone, in Trello. Whenever I think a thought like "they could use X" or if they mention something they like or want, I write it down as a card before I forget.
When you're playing an MMORPG you're not using the web, but you're using the Internet. The Internet is like the postal service relaying stuff, but the stuff can be of different kinds.
I think the people who "infected" this word just have the general mindset of human relations being no different from any other animals, e.g. they subscribe to how Jordan Peterson explains human behavior by comparing us to lobsters. They tend to take human ideas like trust and altruism (love, if you will) out of the equation and view relationships only as evolutionary transactions. So they probably wouldn't have any problem referring to themselves as males any more than they refer to women as females.
It makes them sound like specimens, dehumanizes and objectifies them. Kinda analogous to saying "I'm taking my offspring to the movies" instead of "I'm going with my son to the movies."
I don't really get how they consider this a meaningful attack vector at all. Of course I can set the phone on fire if I can replace the charger - that's pretty much always going to be true and there's no reasonable way to fix it. The only possible use I see is to do it when someone is not intentionally charging their phone, e.g. holding a malicious charger close enough when they have the phone in their pocket.
Your argument is not relevant to anything I said. So I don't want to engage with it because it derails the discussion here, which is not about the ethics of piracy but about the community's openness to discussing it.
We're talking about whether the community has a nuanced discussion about the ethics of piracy or not. What you said just now is another attempt at a false dichotomy, so if you're trying to represent the community you're kind of proving my point.
Without a context of where this is or the temperature units used, the image is meaningless.
Where I live the forecast for tomorrow is between 0 and 7 degrees. Is that hot or cold?