maybe missing out on a few games but that is probably a tie with Linux

As some one who runs both: no, not even close. Mac has more direct ports than Linux true, but proton vastly outweighs that. I have dozens of games that show up on steam on my mac as unplayable where as I dont have any that wont run under proton.

Five years ago you’d probably have been right, but Linux is far superior to OSX for gaming now.

(E: assuming you’re talking about an apple silicon macbook, IDK the status of proton on x86 macs maybe it works there?)

And jesus, the writing in BE! There’s only so many times I can hear “haha look at these funny space people who think the dynamo is an invention from antiquity”

This is a really good science communication article, it describes their work in clear terms (finding structures that relate to abstract concepts, seeing when they are activated and how strengthening and weaking them modifies outputs) and goes into the implications for it. I’m probably going to save this link as a rebuttal for the people who claim LLMs just predict the next word and have no concepts embedded in them.

Which 1000 Indians are making the Mistral 8x7B model running on my desktop work?

People aren’t advocating for Disney level copyright protection

No they aren’t, they are arguing for making copyright even stronger than the system created by Disney, where not even distributing copies of a work lands you falling foul of the rights of property holders.

Generally the position that I’ve seen being advocated is taking copyrighted works, distilling that information (the plagiarism machine etc) and then using that to create new works would be violating the property rights of people who made the original works, despite a copy of them never being distributed. That is a massive expansion of IP rights that you not only have rights to the original work but also to derivative works.

Most certainly they are not on the same side as corporations, which are embracing AI art wholeheartedly despite the disputed status of copyright laws surrounding it.

“Corporations” are not a monolith on this, what Disney or a publishing house wants is not aligned with what an upstart AI company wants. Which means that change from the property holder centric system is possible for the first time in a century or more as there are powerful interests lining up both for and against it rather than being puerly on the side of the status quo.

The people “obsessed” with it are, by and large, independent and industry artists

I’m not sure that’s true unless Lemmy has an incredibly strange community of whom a significant proportion are tech focused professional artists. But regardless the point I’m making is more about the mindset where people become vociferous defenders of an unjust system that benefits large corporations because they are fighting for the few scraps that they get out of it, rather than considering alternatives.

The bit where people all of a sudden become obsessed with owning intellectual property and generating passive income from it (royalties) and value people being able to monetise cultural artefacts rather than allow them to contribute to the common good.

One of the saddest things I’ve seen on Lemmy is that while people here generally have sensible left wing opinions on things (the tankies aside), as soon as AI is brought up in any context most of the users seem to transform in to pearl clutching petite bourgeoisie.

China opened up because despite the intense government control and suppression they started having spontaneous demonstrations verging on riots against the restrictions which spooked the government.

Covid is over in the same way the flu was over in 1923, its still there, it’ll still kill people every winter but its endemic and there’s no getting rid of it and no point upending all society with all the other problems that causes in order to try and bring it down a few percent.

Humans were the best at weaving until looms came along, humans were the best at welding components together until industrial robots came along. Humans were the best at doing double entry accounting until digital computers came along.

I just don’t see this current wave of AI of being any different than previous technological advances that became tools better at specific tasks than humans.

This is one-way, hunans don’t win back ground.

No they dont they open up new gound as technology increases the range of the possible, as the article talks about

One critical wild card is how many new jobs will be created by AI even as existing ones disappear. Estimating such job creation is notoriously difficult. But MIT’s David Autor and his collaborators recently calculated that 60% of employment in 2018 was in types of jobs that didn’t exist before 1940.

Did you even read the paragraphs I pulled out, not even the article itself?

Then Compton abruptly switched perspectives, acknowledging that for some workers and communities, “technological unemployment may be a very serious social problem, as in a town whose mill has had to shut down, or in a craft which has been superseded by a new art.”

His whole point was technology does not reduce the amount of employment as a whole, but it can focus pain on particular communities that get displaced by technology. I just don’t buy into the tech bro singularity cult that AI will grow at an exponential rate and replace everyone, AI will be a tool like any other - extending human capabilities but not replacing them entirely.

in Australia, a country known for it’s sunshine that also has plenty of wind and capacity for hydro power, while still requiring gas/diesel backing of 1/3 of total generation capacity.

That’s a normal size for a compact car. American car sizes have inflated to ridiculous proportions.

Cant wait to see this one fall to bears too.

The article is literally about the problem of ownership being too concentrated and wealth overruling people with knowledge of businesses. “Tech” here doesn’t mean technology it means the big tech companies.

It really isn’t. You don’t start doing properly original research until a year or two into a PhD. At best a masters project is going to be doing something like taking an existing model and applying it to an adjacent topic to the one it was designed for.

countries had perfectly functioning rifles in 1890, didnt stop research into how to make better ones.

*net energy output if you ignore that fact that 100 times more energy was put into the lasers than was released in fusion.

This is a weapon research program with a bit of civilan pr fluff on the side.

You can easily get photoshop to reproduce one of Mondrain’s paintings. That’s on the user not the tool, i fail to see why the same doesnt apply to the tool of generative AI.