FaceDeer

Yeah, so many people are confidently stating “LLMs can’t think like humans do!” When we’re actually still pretty unclear on how humans think.

Sure, an LLM on its own may not be an AGI. But they’re remarkably closer than we would have predicted they could get just a few years ago, and it may well be that we just need to add a bit more “special sauce” (memory, prompting strategies, perhaps a couple of parallel LLMs that specialize in different types of reasoning) to get them over the hump. At this point a lot of the research isn’t going into simply “make it bigger!”, it’s going into “use LLMs smarter.”

Actually, you can do exactly that. Fork them.

You can’t force the people who are using Github to follow you, of course. But that’s every individual’s choice.

You think Microsoft is the only “evil corporation” among these? That’s very naive. Any hosting service will deplatform users when they can see a profit to be made from doing so.

“We” as in the conversation as a whole. You joined an ongoing thread.

So we’ve moved from “GitHub is not open source” to “GitHub has some support software for peripheral features that is not open-source?” I’m definitely failing to see the rant-worthiness of it at this point. It’s certainly not monopolistic, platforms like GitLab and Bitbucket also provide these features. And I’d bet that some of them have their own proprietary software to support these things too.

There’s quite a series of leaps of logic here.

Because Google (not Microsoft) released a project under the BSD license (an open source license) but “everyone on Lemmy” doesn’t think it’s open source, therefore a hosting site owned by Microsoft (not Google) is not “open source.”

I’m not even sure what is meant by GitHub being “open source.” It’s a hosting provider, not an actual piece of software. The site itself doesn’t have a source license. The individual repositories can have licenses, which can be whatever the user who created the repository sets it to be - including open source licenses. Do you mean GitHub Desktop? Microsoft released that under the MIT license. And you don’t need GitHub Desktop to use GitHub anyway.

Oh, that’s what you meant. How do you contribute to a project on any git host if that git host won’t let you? In what way is GitHub any different from that?

You’re not “pretty fucked”. Just use one of the many other git hosts out there. OP himself lists some of them in his rant.

Microsoft has developed many open-source projects. The view of Microsoft as some kind of anti-open-source crusader is 20 years out of date.

All of those issues would arise if you wanted to migrate an established project to Github as well.

This isn’t even a problem with historical awareness, OP knows that Github isn’t a monopoly. They listed off a bunch of alternatives in their rant. I’m really not sure what they were even complaining about.

Content warning: this is a rant from a teenager who has strong opinions.

Okay…

However, it holds a monopoly on software.

You don’t know what a “monopoly” is.

they could just go “Boop! You’re gone!” and there’s nothing I could do about it other than move forges.

Yeah, nothing you could do about it, other than moving to one of the many other git hosts. Monopoly!

And then after listing off a whole bunch of alternative git hosts…

Centralization is not bad by itself but it’s bad when there’s no other option. There just needs to be ways to contribute to code without having to use Github.

You have plenty of ways to do that, and you know that because you just listed them. Github is not a monopoly.

Also, I don’t see the concept of open source mentioned at any point in this rant.

There’s a broad spectrum between reason and murder. You could tackle them, or bonk them with a stick, or distract them with shiny objects.

Yeah. If god’s so powerful why can’t he do it himself?

Here’s an October 2023 survey on the subject from the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council on the subject of AI adoption. It found very extensive usage for a wide range of needs.

If it lets a person doing job X do twice as much work, that’s effectively replacing a person in job X. There’s now half as many of those jobs needed.

The new jobs may come whether they “mean to” or not, though.

All that money that gets saved goes somewhere. Yes, “trickle-down” is a lie, simply feeding more money to already-rich people won’t mean much to the economy. But if AI makes it cheaper to run a company it can also make it cheaper to start and grow a company. It’s not just giant companies that will be making use of these tools.

Yeah, and as a programmer-person I’ve pondered where new programmers will come from once AIs replace all the interns.

There’s a potential solution, though. Have you ever sat down with an AI and used it as a “tutor” while learning new stuff? It no doubt varies from person to person since different people learn different ways, but I’ve found it downright incredible how easy it is to learn when I’ve got an infinitely-patient AI I can ask to have walk me through new stuff. So maybe in future lawyers and programmers and whatnot can just skip the larval stage.

Did you read the article? It actually addresses much of what you talk about. For example:

“The promise of AI is a stake in human judgment and trying to automate some of it so that humans can focus on higher-order tasks that are much more fruitful,” he said.

The point is not to remove humans entirely. It’s to automate the stuff that can be automated so that the humans you do have can focus on the important stuff that can’t be automated. Human employees are expensive so you’ll want to use them wisely, not doing busy-work that a machine can handle.

I’ll be supporting the incoming “Not made with AI” products and businesses so hard from here on our to just take away whatever monetary resources I can from dipshits like this.

If you wish, but you’ll likely end up paying a hefty premium to do so. This is like insisting on only eating hand-churned butter or only wearing hand-stitched clothing - you can probably find niche providers that supply that but you’ve got to be pretty rich to pull that off as a lifestyle.

I’m in a campaign (with rotating GMs) where I’m playing a character who is literally an alien infiltrator that has infiltrated the party. Except he’s really bad at it and it’s obvious he’s an alien infiltrator, and because he’s bad at it he has no idea that it’s obvious. The party’s superiors told them to play along for now and try to find out what my character is up to.

It’s been about four years now, going on five, and I practically had to spoon-feed them useful tidbits about his mission. I’ve finally just kidnapped them all and took them back to my homeworld, we’re now running through the adventure where they escape. I had to put an alien diplomat in their cell to monologue information about them.

Still, I’ve been having fun so I don’t mind. Just amusing how much PCs are willing to trust other PCs simply because they’re PCs. :)

Sometimes it’s different for NPCs, but not always - in another campaign just now the party encountered an Aboleth who told them that he was a good Aboleth that wasn’t interested in mind control or manipulating anyone. And by the way, there’s this list of quests he’s working on and he’d appreciate some help. They jumped right in. He actually is on the level, but come on - Aboleth. If there’s anyone to be instantly suspicious of it’s someone like that.