You don't need to go all-ancient with "paper and pencil" solutions, which have privacy issues of their own (not being easily encrypted etc.), just do not use "cloud services", but keep and process your data exclusively on local hardware you own and control.

I never bothered to use any of those bloated "desktop environments" like KDE or Gnome, simply because I have no use for their "functionality". The likes of fvwm or i3 do everything I need for arranging application windows on physical/virtual screens. I don't mind anyone using KDE or Gnome, but I find it strange some of its users act as if a "desktop environment" was an important, defining component of their system software. I bet even they spend 99% of their time interacting with the actual applications, not with the window decorations or colorful fluff on the screen.

If somebody had told me in the 1980s that by 2026, when there are public statements from both the US' and Iran's government, only the latter would sound like they were made by adults, I would have not believed such to be possible... but here we are.

Optimistic to think there are still engineers among Microslop's vibe coders. Those have probably already been replaced by cheaper junior "product managers" that talk to the coding agent, asking it to implement the next shitty misfeature to squeeze more profit out of the locked-in customers.

According to some sources, the "independent" evaluators are pretty much family and cult members of those training the models.

Could anyone seriously be surprised to find that AI companies utilize this perfect scenario where naive people voluntarily hand over all their "business secrets" to them? Other "cloud"-services at least had to put in the effort to comb through all what is stored on the computers they rent out in order to find something of value to sell... but hosted LLM services pretty much only get the "interesting latest development" stuff handed to by their users, and those users already pay for the service to semantically analyze these inputs. A dream scenario for data brokers.

"Human lawyer using AI tool" clearly is not the way to go these days, instead the lawyer should have been replaced by an AI agent (owned by some big corporation), because we all know when such AI agents do wrong, nobody gets fined, and the event would even be good for some marketing press releases.

It almost appears as if every vaguely related company out there really wants to experience a VR investment flop of their own, like it is a trophy to put up on your wall. I don't see any compelling reason why "this time" specifically their new VR headset should find an audience outside of the relatively small group that already enthusiastically tested the previously existing ones. I for one have had my 15 minutes of "ok, cool effect, but now let's do something else"-experience with a number of those devices, and I really don't see how the next one could lure me into wearing a headset for any extended period of time. (And no, it is not nausea I experience with VR headsets, I just think they are uncomfortable to wear.)

The scores of Chinese models like Kimi K3 are pretty much the same as the scores of the US frontier models - even if you could somehow prevent "distilling from US models", that would mean nothing for the rest of the world. And since several Chinese models are open-weight already, there are no horses left any AI company could keep in their barn. (Even if those horses were not stolen from others, before.)

I knew I couldn't trust the ingredients list of IcyHot!

According to the statistics on AI-slop video-clip uploads and views thereof (on Youtube and others), the "Influencer" sphere is already in the middle of having humans replaced by AI.

I for one think it is believable that a person does not want to remain part of something they think has a 10% chance of killing everyone, while at the same time not thinking it would be worthwhile to dedicate the rest of one's life to a fight against that something. Maybe he rather wants to spend whatever many years remain with activities he enjoys rather than with a futile attempt on convincing the entire world to abandon a technology that may kill everyone, but also may provide "the first to perfect it" untold riches and power.

If the only realistic outcomes one sees are either (A) "Me becoming enslaved by that enemy" or (B) "Everybody dies", a lot of people will favor (B) over (A), and historically already did so with regards to the nuclear "mutually assured destruction" doctrine.

You mean "stolen key" as in "key of a camera someone happened to make pictures with that show members of the 0.1% doing crimes"?

Some deranged General asking a military AI (the likes of which definitely are being built and deployed) to "win this battle whatever it takes" seems more likely to me, given that those AIs won't have any strict "no killing please, mmkay?"-rule written into their system prompt to begin with.