LLMs are not good at self-management or judgement-call making. Allowing them to be "agents" and do things on your behalf is problematic because they can get things wrong and then make things worse when they try to fix it. They are much worse about this than human agents.

In my experience so far LLMs can generate code that "looks right", but doesn't necessarily work right. The more details there are in the requirements, the worse the LLM does. And in my experience implementing business workflow pipelines using LLMs, the LLMs are pretty good at interpreting plain English requests and translating them to something machine-parseable (like JSON or whatever), so you can then write your own code that reliably takes action, using the LLM just as a bridge between the two. But the more you ask the LLM to solve problems itself, make decisions itself, or take actions itself, the more it lets you down.

So, I think that AI just isn't ready for what Microsoft plans to use it for. And it seems like many others agree.

If they plan to actually generate movies in Saudi Arabia, their morality police are going to restrict them heavily. I doubt most of the rest of the world would be interested for long.

If their plan is only to make the software, will those contracts ban anything forbidden by the Saudi morality police? Will the software have hidden restraints? It would be easy to detect forbidden scenes. It might not be so easy to detect more subtle restraints, such as ideological bias.

I'm convinced of it. You'll supply a script, cast, and style and it will generate the movie. At some point, you will also be able to interact with the movie, talking to the characters ("your other left"), talking to the generator ("skip this scene").

Famous actors will sell their personas, famous writers will sell scripts, famous directors and producers will sell styles, but I think most people will pay less for B-list and C-list and Z-list content that they can tweak to get something different every time.

You will also be able to add your overlays to scripts ("more cowbells"), personas ("more witty") and styles ("fewer explosions"), and you will be able to add random variations.

It's going to be fantastic. Hollywood democratization will be like a breath of fresh air.

Lincoln was a Free Soiler. He may have had a moral aversion to slavery, but it was secondary to his economic concerns. He believed that slavery could continue in the South but should not be extended into the western territories, primarily because it limited economic opportunities for white laborers, who would otherwise have to compete with enslaved workers.

From an economic perspective, he was right. The Southern slave system enriched a small aristocratic elite—roughly 5% of whites—while offering poor whites very limited upward mobility.

The politics of the era were far more complicated than the simplified narrative of a uniformly radical abolitionist North confronting a uniformly pro-secession South. This oversimplification is largely an artifact of neo-Confederate historical revisionism. In reality, the North was deeply racist by modern standards, support for Southern secession was far from universal, and many secession conventions were marked by severe democratic irregularities, including voter intimidation.

The current coalescence of anti-science attitudes and neo-Confederate interpretations of the Civil War is not accidental. Both reflect a willingness to supplant scholarship with narratives that are more “correct” ideologically. This tendency is universal—everyone does it to some degree—but in these cases, it is profoundly anti-intellectual: inconvenient evidence is simply ignored or dismissed. As in the antebellum South, this lack of critical thought is being exploited to entrench an economic elite. It keeps people focused on fears over vaccinations or immigrant labor while policies serving elite interests are quietly enacted.

It's different from humans in that human opinions, expertise and intelligence are rooted in their experience. Good or bad, and inconsistent as it is, it is far, far more stable than AI. If you've ever tried to work at a long running task with generative AI, the crash in performance as the context rots is very, very noticeable, and it's intrinsic to the technology. Work with a human long enough, and you will see the faults in his reasoning, sure, but it's just as good or bad as it was at the beginning.

Correct. This is why I don't like the term "hallucinate". AIs don't experience hallucinations, because they don't experience anything. The problem they have would more correctly be called, in psychology terms "confabulation" -- they patch up holes in their knowledge by making up plausible sounding facts.

I have experimented with AI assistance for certain tasks, and find that generative AI absolutely passes the Turing test for short sessions -- if anything it's too good; too fast; too well-informed. But the longer the session goes, the more the illusion of intelligence evaporates.

This is because under the hood, what AI is doing is a bunch of linear algebra. The "model" is a set of matrices, and the "context" is a set of vectors representing your session up to the current point, augmented during each prompt response by results from Internet searches. The problem is, the "context" takes up lots of expensive high performance video RAM, and every user only gets so much of that. When you run out of space for your context, the older stuff drops out of the context. This is why credibility drops the longer a session runs. You start with a nice empty context, and you bring in some internet search results and run them through the model and it all makes sense. When you start throwing out parts of the context, the context turns into inconsistent mush.

It probably makes more sense given their scale for them to have their own power generation -- solar, wind, and battery storage, maybe gas turbines for extended periods of low renewable availability.

In fact, you could take it further. You could designate town-sized areas for multiple companies' data centers, served by an electricity source (possibly nuclear) and water reclamation and recycling centers providing zero carbon emissions and minimal environmental impact. It would be served by a compact, robust, and completely sepate electrical grid of its own, reducing costs for the data centers and isolating residential customers from the impact of their elecrical use. It would also economically concentrate data centers for businesses providing services they need,reducing costs and increasing profits all around.

I've been using a TCL NXTPAPER for reading for a couple of years, and haven't used my kindles since. The screen has no glare at all, none. It's night right now, can't tell you about reading in bright sunlight. I haven't found a phone yet which is any fun in bright sun, so this NXTPAPER is probably not great either. But none of my house lights drown it out.

I have one, #11 I believe, which I use instead of Kindles. Zero glare, zero lag while paging. Works OK for general use too, but it beats the pants off Kindles and all other tablets I've tried for readability. Had it for a couple of years now.

But it looks like slashdot has a new annoying add that moves up from the bottom of the screen to get your attention and obscures content until you interact with it. I see no option to disable this.

In short: I hate it.

it's just as bad to build things that are exceptionally good and stimulating that greed as it is to take advantage of them.

So, when coin-money was invented it made bartering a whole lot easier, but also enabled greed at a whole new level. Are the people who invented coin money enemies of humanity?

And when fiat money was invented, it averted a global economic crash that would have impoverished the entire developed world. It also took greed-enablement to the next level. Are those people enemies of humanity too?

What about people who invented computers? That allowed for electronic banking and commerce, which blew the ceiling off the levels of greed that can now be achieved. Are the inventors of computers enemies of humanity too?

Come to think of it, the police spend a lot of time preventing poor people from robbing rich people. This enables the greed of rich people. Does that mean that the entire enterprise of law enforcement is nothing but enemies of humanity?

I could go on, but I think my point is clear. Either literally everyone who has ever existed or ever will exist is an enemy of humanity, or your blame-shifting is utterly unreasonable.

Or both.

The big tax preparation software companies lobbied strongly against the Direct File system, for obvious reasons.

They are just as obviously operating as a cartel, keeping their prices "in the same ballpark" without exactly matching. I remember a day when TaxAct was still a new entrant into the market, and it had excellent features and support at a price that significantly undercut TurboTax and H&R Block. Once it achieved popularity, its price suddenly jumped (a bit more than double) to match that of H&R block. Its features and support didn't improve at all; the price hiked and that was it.

TurboTax still charges more than the other two, creating an illusion of price competition. The truth is that TurboTax is significantly more popular, so it charges more, even though its features and service level are merely equivalent (at best).

So they all three ride on the same gravy train, and the last thing they want is a taxpayer-funded entity to provide a high quality option for free. They might have to actually EARN their income then! So they applied their considerable wealth to the political action of killing this offering, and succeeded.

With a president who solves an existential threat by finding the best expert he can find, and using his own formidable political skills and charisma to run interference for that expert.

Seriously, Comacho was a meathead, but Iâ(TM)d vote for him.

This new feature has not changed my opinion of Windows 11.

I still won't use it.

The Matrix
The Colony
Aeon Flux
Highlander 2