I'd be curious what the breakdown is between 'addicts', in the compulsively-does-thing-despite-knowing-it-is-contrary-to-their-interests sense, and sad but locally reasonable behavior from people with tepid options.

'Addict' is a comparatively easy call to make when people are getting fired because they no-showed to play WoW; or spending all their time scrolling tiktok despite having a school or college worth of peers to socialize with; but if you are retired, less physically able to get out and about than you used to be, and at the age where your friends and peers are starting to die off, it seems like a much more open question whether having an engaging if ultimately rather hollow hobby is an 'addiction' or just a kind of depressing local maximum.

It's obviously not some ideal of perfected human flourishing; but if you are doing it because you don't really have things to do, rather than at the expense of things you have to do, that's not really classic addict behavior; just a mediocre hobby.

Easy for you, a technical person familiar with LLMs and WebAssembly

I'm not talking about how to develop LLM inference servers. You don't have to understand WebAssembly in order to run a WebAssembly program in your browser any more than you have to understand Javascript to run Javascript in your browser. It's *less* technological knowledge than using the Play store. And installing Ollama is no more difficult than installing any other app.

Your difficulty conceptions are simply wrong.

I don't understand your response. Was "life breathed into" the ancient Chinese robotic orchestras and singers, or the Islamic robotic orchestra and mechanical peacocks?

And re: myths, the aforementioned myths literally involved *humans* making the automatons. Ajatasatru for example, the maker of the robots to guard the artifacts of the Buddha, was also famous for using a mechanical war chariot of great complexity with whirling spiked maces, and later one with spinning scythes - not the sort of things you would describe as having "life breathed life into", and actually quite similar to Leonardo Da Vinci's chariot (in some versions he made it/them, in other versions it was a gift from the Indras). As for the robots guarding the Buddha, in one version they're literally powered by water wheels. In another version, Greco-Romans had a caste of robot makers, and to steal the technology, a young Indian man was reincarnated as a Greco-Roman, marries the daughter of a robot-maker, and sews the plans for robots into his thigh, so that when he's murdered by killbots as he tries to flee with the plans, they still make it back to India with his body. Yes, ancient Indian legends literally involved robot assassins.

And as for the robots in the Naravahandatta, they were literally made by a carpenter, and are specifically described as "lifeless wooden beings that mimic life".

Even with Hephestos, a literal god, they're very much not described as merely having life breathed into them - they're literally described as having been crafted (the Greeks were very much into machinery and described it in similar terms), and they behave as if something that were programmed (the Kourai Khryseai are perhaps the most humanlike of Hephaestus's creations, but even they aren't described like you would describe biological beings, they're described for being remarkable for how lifelike they were). Of course it wasn't for-loops and subroutines, people had no conception of such a thing, but his creations behaved in a "programmed" way, not as things with free will.

I don't know why some people are so insistent on imagining that "sci-fi" things have to be recent. They're not. There were literally space operas being written in Roman times. Not scientifically accurate, of course, but sci fi things - including automated things that mimic intelligence - simply is not new.

I'm sorry, but let me repeat: it is an apt description of what it's doing. Nobody says ".... and does so via the exact same mechanism that the human brain uses when paying attention" (which I doubt you could describe anyway, and is in reality very much still a topic of research)

Could you help me understand the 'irony' here? Is saying impolite things about a dead guy the moral equivalent to being perhaps the most pivotal figure behind a war with an estimated half-million dead and a causus belli that was transparent bullshit; not to mention the elevation of extrajudicial torture to official policy? I'm not sure I follow.

And, if you'd like to expand on the 'political leanings' thing; I'd be more than happy to call anyone whose politics involve thinking that Cheney did a great job a monster as well; especially when it's so hard to argue that any of Cheney's ugliest aspects even paid off. Flirting with more expansive theories of the ends justifying the means can be a dangerous business; but, bare minimum, you can attempt to rank means by degree of atrocity and ends by degree of effectiveness; and on that score Cheney's work was honestly pretty shit.

Remember the 'Pax Americana' that the neocons assured us could be bombed into the fractious elements of the middle east? Lol. Bin Laden? Dude was chilling in an upmarket suburb in Pakistan while we were pissing away blood and treasure on hitting a mixture of hapless civilians and 'insurgents' who had the temerity to suggest that our puppet government was not the legitimate local administration in one peripherally involved country and one uninvolved one.

So, go ahead, please, explain your other level of irony. Tell us whose political loyalties are to this grade of not-even-effective violence. What'll it be?

Tell me you've never been a landlord, without telling me you've never been a landlord.

Landlords LOVE chargers. They attract higher-income renters with better credit ratings, especially if they're at the high end of power output. I installed at least one and sometimes two Autel 50A chargers at all 28 of my rental properties three years ago and have been steadily able to cycle out to higher-paying, lower credit risk tenants.

So, you won't even consider an EV because you insist on being the one who blocks your mailbox?

That makes sense.

You have to be careful talking to anti-union MAGAts. To them, "communism" isn't an economic system. It just means "any system of government, economics, or religion we don't like." It doesn't matter to them what China actually is. It only matters that it's not "freedom" or whatever it is MAGAts think they're supporting (because it definitely isn't freedom). Probably Jesus. China doesn't like Jesus, so therefore they're COMMUNISTS!

Luckily, reliable sources assure me that he will be greeted as a liberator in hell; so things should go fine.

Which is hilarious in its irony since the original Tea Party was vested in throwing off the King.

>> October rolls around and the tax credit is gone, along with many of the near purchase consumers who bought while the tax credit was still active.

Not to mention the inventory is also gone. Not a single EV on the lot at any local dealer here.. I waited too long and they were all gone. I was going to buy an EV9 but now I have to wait until Kia backs the tax credit out of the price.

Is Linux an OS by your definition? A recent slashdot post linked to a web page where Linux runs in webasm. It boots and runs /bin/sh as init. You can run a few basic commands including top. But it surely can't run firefox or anything "useful." Come to that my router runs Linux but I can't run "anything" on it. So it must not be an "OPERATING SYSTEM" then according to you.

Your car analogy is nonsense by the way. The engine is clearly still there. Only the steering wheel and seats have been removed. Car is totally functional though.

My prediction, raising prices even to break even will cause "interest" in AI to plummet.

Yes when running MS-DOS software you could say it was a shell. But in 386 it ran in protected mode, something that MS-DOS surely didn't do natively. I consider windows 3.1 to be it's own operating system that incorporated MS-DOS as a part of it. I used many MS-DOS shells in my day and windows 3.1 was way more than that. Windows even required its own drivers separate from DOS.

But without AI, how are the automatic doors going to sound authentically self-satisfied when they say "glad to be of service"?