On a related note, I’ve had trouble finding high quality 8" tablets in the last few years. They used to be easy to find, but maybe with the flagship smartphones getting larger, sales on smaller tablets died off? Unsure.

What a shit headline. Yes we should care about people saying fuck it. But not this colored pill horseshit.

If AI is stealing our jobs, can we lock AI up in El Salvador? After all, it’s not paying its fair share of taxes. It’s stealing from us. It’s a danger to women and children. It eats cats and dogs.

There is plenty wrong with generative AI as a tool if you think of it in those terms.

I would say that if the depth of analysis is limited to “AI” or “genAI” then use of it in schools is overwhelmingly bad. If that’s the limit of our ability to frame the issue, then banning AI would appear inevitable, and any graded assignment that might encourage AI use should be banned.

But if you want to break things down, you can find specific tools (i.e., calculators, grammar checkers) that could be labeled as AI or specific uses of genAI (i.e., brainstorming) that have use. And it is this latter approach – clearly identifying positive uses – that is difficult for students, media writers, and apparently policy makers to do.

Yes and no. Remember that rich kids could always hire ghost writers. ChatGPT made that available to the masses, but that particular problem goes back centuries.

What we have seen is that the curriculum is often decided by a distant committee who actually doesn’t understand life on the ground. In reality, there are easy ways for teachers to undercut the utility of ChatGPT, if they have the freedom to make changes. But that depends on teachers having control and the time to make changes to how they teach.

The headline is a lie. Developers will be fine. One company will lose users. And rightly so.

I’ve been in your position and in the other person’s position many times. It can be frustrating but we need to think about the big picture. It’s possible you hadn’t considered a certain approach, and it’s probable that many other future readers will not have considered a certain approach. So even though you might have said that you want to do something specific, it’s often helpful to some people to provide general information of another way to tackle the same issue.

And of course you know your own situation, so now there are these comments that appear off topic, and they kind of are, for you, and that’s just how it is on forums.

The other situation that comes up a lot is that people are doing it wrong. They are misusing some piece of technology and while their kluge might kind of work right now, it’s setting themselves up for bigger issues in the future. Of course no one appreciates it when you tell them they’re doing it wrong.

This is 90% hyperbole. As always, believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see. We live most of our lives responding to shit we personally witnessed. Trust your senses. Of course the other part is a matter for concern, but not like the apocalyptic crowd would tell you.

It is always a safe bet that the snake oil salespeople are, once again, selling snake oil.

Except what you’re describing doesn’t make sense. If the new owners purchased all of those things, then in reality they purchased the company. Courts are very likely to agree on this. It looks like a company-wide sale, therefore it probably is, even if someone tries to add a line saying “we aren’t liable”.

But imagine someone could “sell everything other than the liability”. In such a case, the seller would be putting themselves on the hook to pay outstanding debts (i.e., the seller would be liable). And we know they have money – they just sold the thing. So then the seller would pay… But they know that in advance, so they would not agree to such a sale in the first place, unless they were planning to steal that money through creative accounting of some kind… But both parties know all of that that in advance, so they would both be acting fraudulently.

I think a company like this is not planning to linger for years. The owners wanna make a buck for a year or two and then sell it off. If they can stiff their customers in the process, they just don’t care.

For long-lasting companies the motivation would be different. But this is not a world-famous VPN company, not by a long shot.

You have just argued against the article itself. Should we believe you?

What a terrible headline. All of us? No. Next.

Holy f***, God forbid making settings menus that actually get you to where you want to go, definitely wouldn’t want to do that, much better to AI.

It’s not just you. The title gets causation totally wrong. If people made bad assumptions about how technology would change in the future, it’s their assumptions that are the problem, not reality.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I agree. And there is also a situation like this, where even if the claim is truthful, It doesn’t actually change anything. He could shift from being the CEO to being the number one advisor to the company, and given his ownership, it would still be the same in effect.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator