This seems to imply that you have some idea. Can you say it? Because I honestly have no idea why anyone would attack a middling distro. Sure, it's used by Valve, and Steam OS is successful, but an attack like this would have no effect on Steam OS, only on Arch, which by itself is not near the top of distros.

So please clarify who you think might benefit from this.

It mostly does have to do with "automation" vs. "real people". For example, as a protection against scalping, where bots can be used to buy products quickly at release, to be sold at a profit, instead of letting legitimate customers do the buying.

While ChatGPT may be smarter than most slashdot posters (based on the responses here), and probably also knows chess better than most (it's trained on millions of games), but unfortunately it's not geared to show that. I'm too lazy to dig up the results from the person who researched this, but apparently there's a particular version of ChatGPT 3.5 which is decent at chess out of the box, and others require specific prompting to get on the right track.

ChatGPT would likely have still lost to Carlsen even with the right version or the right prompting, but still, it would be interesting to see what kind of game Carlsen would have gotten had he known the right way to get ChatGPT to play.

If people don't follow links, they see fewer ads, and they might also not follow sponsored links. So I'm inclined to believe that this will end up reducing the revenue of Google. Seems to me like Google will have to replace that with "AI ads" or whatever.

Agreed. That's why AI in general is helpful. It can quickly return answers that previously took longer to find. Sure, it's not completely trustworthy, but for simple questions it's most often good enough.

Sure, there are a lot of movies, but I think that's just half the problem. As I mentioned, I feel that the Marvel TV series are more of an issue. These ad many many hours of superhero stuff to watch, and the problem is that movies then reference the series. You can't go to a movie and fully understand it without these references.

Not related to your rant, which I totally disagree with but feel no need to argue, as what I like is simply different than what you like. However, I have to disagree with your sig.

Digital is, by definition, perfect. Digital is order, it's something that is well defined. It's something that tells you precisely what it is. Even its imperfections are well defined.

Analogue is a mess. It's a collection of physical features which produce, by total happenstance (and tweaking) something that might be pleasant. It's something that can't be recreated precisely because it's imprecise by nature.

No, it doesn't depress me. Comparisons between versions of things is something I enjoy. It's like watching a movie of a book. They may be different, but even if they're both not great, noting the differences creates for me something which transcends the originals.

Granted, I know that's not the case for a lot of other people, but when someone tells me "that's Superman, but different in some ways", and these are ways I think I'd like (such as not being dark), this immediately makes me curious.

I agree that there is enough source material out there that people could make movies for years without having to tread over well trodden ground. Does it depress me? No. I can read books. I don't expect movie blockbusters to be terribly original.

What superhero movies are you specifically referring to that were "hammering over the head about societal issues"? I can't think of many, and those that did address social issues (Civil War, X-Men: Days of Future Past) followed well regarded comics about these issues (though haven't necessarily implemented them well).

"Superhero fatigue" actually comes from another direction: there are just so many movies you can watch that are basically the same, and too many tie-in Marvel TV series, which the movies referenced. So something that was originally a fun novelty, and, with the Avengers, built a satisfying story arc, became a chore to watch, with just too much stuff going on. It was initially something that anyone could watch and enjoy, and ended something only satisfying for superfans.

> Remember folks we need those high income white collar workers to employ all those plumbers everybody is so excited about.

That's not really it. We need those high income workers to pay taxes, that can then go support everyone. If you have a serious drop in taxes, the government would have less to spend on everything.

(Although at least in the context of the US, it seems like the current administration wants to reduce taxes anyway, as a way of reducing the deficit. Makes total sense.)

I think we're safe. Watches are normally worn on the left arm. :)

The quotes mentioned aren't "AI is providing a worse experience", they are "oh, no, we are losing our humanity". If your only reason to not use a technology is because you're worried that lamplighters will lose their jobs, then you will always be part of a small minority.

Like all marketing these days, 'AI' appears in this for no other reason than to attract views. The argument has little to do with AI, and if AI wasn't a thing, people would still argue the benefits of Minecraft as a tool to learn programming, in a very similar way. Minecraft isn't any better or worse for this because "we're in the age of AI". Well, actually if we were already fully in an age of AI it would likely have been just as bad as any other method of learning to program, as the kids learning to "program" Minecraft would just have used AI.

As a Quest user, I find the touch interface much superior to controllers when it comes to UI interaction. Holding a controller in your hand and pretending that it's your fingers is a lot more cumbersome than actually using your fingers.

You must remember that people do mostly content consumption. Most interactions are short, and definitely not two minutes straight. Sure, you won't be able to comfortably play a mobile game in the air, but scrolling or selecting things? That shouldn't be too tasking. I'm not young, I'm not a sporty person, but I still have no problem with that kind of interaction on the Quest. I imagine that the majority of people are unlikely to have problem with that.

Because they'd probably be better than most of what humans generate.

Most of the visual art I see today is AI generated, and I imagine that's the case for most people. That's because people can easily create an image that's imaginative. Sure, a lot of people create crap, but there's more than enough enjoyable stuff in there, much more than if people didn't have AI as a tool. I imagine this is true for music too.