Eh, yes you’re right but seriously what are we gaining from this mission? As far as I’ve heard there’s nothing really new that were gaining from it, just… Because?

To the ops point, there are a multitude of more beneficial projects that money could have gone toward instead in the same realm.

But they also should visit and be able to interact with prisons lmao.

I guess therein kinda lies the problem for me, the fact there’s a lot of idiots doesn’t mean we should prevent everyone from using that thing.

Its just hard to find the line between what is reasonable and babyproofing (degrading the possible quality of) a certain system/feature/tool.

I feel like AI/LLMs in particular are another example, I hear a lot of people saying they need to be blocked/banned because we have dumbasses falling in love with them, people using them to help them commit suicide or people having breaks with reality because they believe the word generation machines lol.

I just don’t think because some people don’t understand how to properly use a thing that it should be completely banned unless the thing is itself literally only intended for harm.

That doesn’t mean I don’t think there should be regulation or anything like that, it’s just I see too many people go way over what I’d think to be reasonable safeguards because idiots ruin it lol.

Edit: Certain drugs too honestly like LSD/Weed/etc

Missed my point but obviously not wrong.

It doesn’t take being a highly trained professional to understand autopilot doesn’t fly the plane.

Time

The fact autopilot is called that in planes but somehow pilots know it doesn’t fly the plane for them completely autonomously…

You don’t think they’d happily target Lemmy if it were larger? It’s still “social media” to them

Except I’m sure they’d charge out the ass and they don’t seem to put any effort into gaming 🤷

Why did you call them LAMP?

I had a friend who gamed on a Mac for a while during that period, most games did work for her.

I do think the M series chips set it back a bit because most games aren’t targeting ARM, so you have to use Rosetta to emulate reducing performance

I think their motive was internal usage and classic embrace/extend/extinguish, along with github was generally well liked amongst its users, so maybe gives MS a bit of a boost on that front.

I can not imagine they knew what was coming with LLMs but I definitely could be wrong.

Oh and they offer it to businesses so it’s another feather in their MS365 ecosystem cap.

They bought it 8 years ago lol

As someone who uses the slop machine, completely agree, it might help improve them further and if you don’t want to use it, move to forgejo or similar (I did that too) and if you still want AI help, try learning how to host your own locally if your GPU can swing it.

They mean because games mainly work on windows first, not so much that gamers specifically want windows.

Because they rightly believe they won’t be paid a living wage if they didn’t have the lottery of tips.

This is such an odd response, nothing of substance

I apologize for responding partially dismissively to your obviously dismissive op.

I was also being serious though, most people who only mildy use AI don’t know how to optimize it with things like skills, normies just chatgpt/claude/copilot directly in the literal “chat” not using additional tooling like skills/sub-agents/mcp servers.

We are so far beyond “computer is just input output device” realistically. There’s thousands of layers of things built on top that produce what we know as a computer and anywhere along that chain things can be broken/not perform as expected because any other layer on the chain failed to do what it was supposed to.

Realistically, what’s the difference between a thing and the facsimile of a thing when the result is the same?

Lmfao and computers are just for nerds

Edit: OpenAI, Anthropic, etc can all die, but LLMs are not. You can run a local model.

Now I completely agree with the hype train is completely out of control and its a monetary bubble, but the tool itself is not going away.

Edit2: I think the dotcom bubble is a good analogy, the underlying idea of the internet and all it can do and online ordering and such was solid, just an insane amount of hype on top that simply couldn’t be reached at that time. But now, the biggest companies ever are mainly internet/tech companies.

Ever heard of skills? You can essentially “teach” it new things that are not directly available in its model, right now it’s still pretty early but it (to me) feels like quite a leap compared to model-only usage.

Its by no means perfect, but I do not think we’re even close to scratching the surface of what all can be done with the tech.

I would bet people back at the advent of computers would scoff at many of the things computers can do now as fantasy.

Edit: Right now, context size is a limiting factor, but you can do things like assign sub-agents to specific tasks/skills and have the overall agent call the subagent to complete the task thereby reducing the context size needed for the skill on the original agent call, it sorta acts as a mediator. Of course you still need to ensure you’re documenting what does/doesn’t work and have that available for future tasks in the same vein so it doesn’t repeat mistakes.

On your point about the underlying model used to train it, I imagine at some point there will be a breakthrough where it becomes more dynamic, I think skills are kind of a stepping stone to that. Maybe instead of models being gigantic, data is broken down into individual skills that are called to inform specific actions, and those skills can easily be dynamic already.