I think what’s interesting is it sounds like the battery is a set of storage containers. My guess is it supports battery swapping, so while the range might be small, it can refuel as part of exchanging cargo

It’s an analogy that illustrates that you are doing his PR work in order to serve an unrelated cause. Is that clear enough to understand or do you want to send people with butterfly nets after me?

You have two masters and one is problematic. It’s nice that your master said kind things about the other, but you still have two masters.

Edit: I don’t follow the guy, I only know that this is a good thing only IF y’all convince others PewDiePie is a good guy actually.

I think you make a better point than I did. I am responding to someone looking at a racist act and insisting it wasn’t racist but stupid.

He’s too dumb to be intentionally racist but he’s a great spoke person for your cause. 🙄

A win for who? Sounds like he will deter some people and attract others based on whether they think checks notes anti-Semitism is a deal breaker. Jesus Christ this is pathetic.

Opiate addict I talked to said your body was never meant to feel that good. That stuff wrecked my brother (a different addict).

You didn’t define authoritarianism or specifically say how it is so in this case, leaving us to guess and you to say we guessed wrong.

That’s an incredibly reactionary take on technology. Look at how open source is qualitatively different from their proprietary counterparts for a clear example of how the base doesn’t just dictate how a tool is used, but how tools are made and how the constraints built into the tool effect how they are used.

I’ve read enough Marx to know the base dictates the shape of the superstructure which includes technology like LLMs.

As if this technology isn’t a product and in service of capitalist relations. Go read Chomsky to see how CNC machines were designed in a way to strengthen capitalist control. gAI is being developed with the same business logic: eliminate jobs at the cost of quality and robustness.

If they are allowed to train on OSS code then the same is true of proprietary code, they use the same legal mechanisms. Get your code off GitHub…

Annoyed Maintainer: fine, here’s a Docker file. Stop filing bugs about how you can’t install node.

I seriously doubt people are reading this far and confirmed by none of our comments have gotten an up vote this far down. And again, if what you are saying is obvious to all then there’s no need to comment further if you are appealing to an audience. I think this has more to do with being in control (as evidence by trying to always enforce the boundaries of the conversation even when you yourself violate those same boundaries).

If it is as transparent as you say then you wouldn’t have the need to comment any further. So why did you?

Interesting, I didn’t accuse you of being emotional just that you have emotional needs. Everyone has emotional needs. Nonviolent Communication is a great tool for disentangling judgements from needs; for example, calling me dishonest speaks to a need for integrity.

Yeah, I wasn’t asking for your professional opinion on gAI but why you feel the need to attack people’s professional reputation when it can only detract from your argument. I have no intention of debating someone who levels such insults but I am happy to talk about the emotional needs around such actions.

Just as you questioned my intention with accusations of dishonesty I am wondering what your intention is when disparaging a random person’s professional pedigrees (with no effort to make the person known to yourself first). I made my perspective on this known to you and I am trying to understand what your intention was as it does not aide in the debate you so vigilantly protect.

Honestly not sure what I expected in terms of a response but this is certainly an interesting reaction. “Calling someone dishonest is not a personal attack” is certainly a take. It’s also interesting that dishonesty is your automatic conclusion when there are other alternatives when someone approached you with a different professional experience; absent is the tendency of expert practitioners to be curious about contextual clues that can lead to different outcomes. I’m going to take your criticism in good faith and recognize this is probably the standard you hold yourself to: that any part of yourself that does not comport to the current ideal is to be treated with suspicion.

Your description of the tools was to make an inaccurate comparison. But sure, I am the “dangerous” one for showing how those examples are deterministic while gAI is not. Your responses with personal attacks makes it harder to address your claims and makes me think you are here to convince yourself and not others.